There is 'somewhere else' for discontented Tories to go

It is said that the now 32% of Tories who are dissatisfied with David Cameron have nowhere else to go.  The number who stayed-at-home for the Bromley by-election showed that the dissatisfied did have another option.  Joining UKIP is a second option and today's Times highlights the case of three Tory officers who have chosen this option.  The three Tories are Toby Horton, former Chairman of William Hague's local party, Mark Hudson, on the official candidates' list, and Kevin Davidson Hall, former Tory candidate for Peterborough.  Anthony Browne, who wrote The Times' story, obviously does not pay enough attention to ConservativeHome as he makes no mention of our hugely relevant Monday finding that UKIP was the favourite choice of party activists when it came to mentioning the other political party closest to their views.  If David Cameron does not adopt a more Eurosceptic outlook - and certainly if he fails to deliver on his revised EPP pledge - he will only risk more leakage of supporters to Nigel Farage's party. 

For most Tories, however, UKIP candidates are the Europhiles' useful idiots.  Again and again they deprive more Eurosceptic Conservative candidates of a majority over LibDem and Labour candidates.  1997 taught the Conservative Party that a fringe party like the Referendum Party does not need to do spectacularly in order to deny us victory in crucial marginal seats.

Comments

[Scotty]

"There is 'somewhere else' for discontented Tories to go"
"The number who stayed-at-home for the Bromley by-election showed that the dissatisfied did have another option. Joining UKIP is a second option"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromley_and_Chislehurst_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
This makes interesting reading for anyone who actually wants to know where the votes went and it was not to UKIP even when Bob Neil was portrayed as a Europhile.
""OTHER than the Conservative Party, which of the following political parties in Britain is CLOSEST to your views?"
Are you suggesting that the 43% of the conservativehome members who voted UKIP to that question will leave the conservative party and join UKIP if the party does not toe the line on Europe?
What about the 57% who did not see UKIP as the closest party to their views?
Does their opinion matter?
"Again and again they deprive more Eurosceptic Conservative candidates of a majority over LibDem and Labour candidates. 1997 taught the Conservative Party that a fringe party like the Referendum Party does not need to do spectacularly in order to deny us victory in crucial marginal seats"
Yes I believe it is in the region of 25 seats, what about the other 100 across the country that is needed to provide a conservative victoy at the next GE, many where it really is a case of UKIP WHO?
Will they be fielding candidates in all these seats?
But my favourite comment in this article has got to be "that a fringe party like the Referendum Party does not need to do spectacularly in order to deny us victory in crucial marginal seats."
Just remind me what the Labour party's majority was in that election and just how vital the Referendum party was in delivering it.
If we are still a democratic party then I would suggest that if you use conservative home survey results to try and influence conservative party policy we should go with the majority. Do we risk alienating the 57% who could not AUTOMATICALLY vote UKIP as an alternative to the party?
I also think that the conservativehome question about "closest party" would have benefited from a regional breakdown of the voting intentions just to give a really balanced view of the "real" threat of a single issue fringe party like UKIP.

[John Irvine]

Newspaper reports have confirmed that a vast number of Conservatives are so fed up with Cameron's socialism that they may well vote UKIP or BNP.

These mnority candidates need only get 4 or 5% and that destroys the Tory majority.

The kind of inexperienced idiots who have ben promoted to the A list will also repel voters. Furthermore, if ordinary working class Tories believe that a woman or an ethnic is being forced on them for reasons of Political Correctness they will rebel, just as Labour voters did in Wales.

The best quote this week was the one about Cameron being one stupid stunt away from disaster. You can carve that alongside "Hug a Hoodie" on Cameron's gravestone

[Jorgen]

If David Cameron does not adopt a more Eurosceptic outlook

Some would clearly prefer that, but I think that the main reason many Conservatives will vote UKIP at the next election is because of the rest of the package: taxcuts, immigration control, crime, no-hoodie-hugging, no redistribution of wealth, no relative poverty etc.

[HF]

We are in a period of great strain within the party. There are a couple of hundred men who have had their career chances either ended or reduced. There are also those uncomfortable with the choice of subjects that the Leadership is speaking to.

These people are looking for an excuse to jump ship. That they jump into a bitterly split party with an average age older than ours and no hope of getting an MP, does mean that their gestures are doomed to end in personal failure.

But in embarking on the A list direction, where was the plan Francis on how to use some of their talents for the party? Afterall CCHQ does need experience.

Does Steve Hilton recognise that we are "one stupid stunt away from disaster"? That we need a clamp down on bone headed statements like Clarke's one on Toynbee and Churchill.

What I worry about is the lack of political nous exhibited by people like Greg Clarke and Paul Offer. Each in there way provided ammunition for our opponents.

If only they had fully engaged their brains before putting pen to paper.

Above all this growing turmoil in the party, we have a part time CEO/Chairman. So which 2 days this week can he allocate to sorting things out? We really need a CEO/Chairman who works 7 days a week just for the party.

[Old Hack]

Anyone who joins UKIP is in for a nasty shock. They are a complete load of nutters who have refined infighting and backstabbing to an artform.

You may be acting in desparation if you join UKIP but you'll be desperate to leave after a while.

[Jorgen]

Who is talking about joining them? Even if I vote UKIP at the next election, I am still a Conservative. I am just waiting for the Conservative Party to become Conservative again.

[Chad]

Sorry to post but I could let some of this rubbish pass unchallenged.

If people followed Tim's logic and voted for the party most able to deliver their agenda, then Tories should switch to Labour as the two parties are so similar in so many areas.

The simple fact is, as Jorgen neatly noted, that UKIP has moved well beyond the EU, and on a wide range of issues now offers a domestic agenda that appeals to many conservatives.

It is not an issue of you moving more left or right but trust. UKIP promotes an agenda because it believes in it, the Tories promote an agenda because they are simply trying different electoral strategies.

People are now beginning to vote for values and not a rosette. That is good for democracy.

UKIP is developing a positive, libertarian, low tax agenda. That sounds very healthy to me.

When did the Tories stop advocating choice?

[Gareth]

"if ordinary working class Tories believe that a woman or an ethnic is being forced on them for reasons of Political Correctness"

I for one would not be sorry to see people who make odious comments like these ('an ethnic'!?) leave our party and join the lunatic fringe in UKIP and the BNP. Good riddance.

[Chad]

The insults show how rattled you are. UKIP promotes equality. It wants to treat everyone equally, so a Pakistani plumber has as much chance of getting into Britain as a Polish one.

That's real equality that cannot be achieved within the preferential private members club that is the EU.

Why does the mention of UKIP cause such hysterics here?

(BTW - I haven't broken my pledge not to post, I have simply moved it to 2009 when I will withdraw from ConHome following a tie-in with a Czech blog group)

[Gareth]

Chad, it was only a matter of time before you broke your word. It was all so tediously predictable.

Not surprised to see you failing to criticise the gratuitously offensive references to 'an ethnic' - you must be used to hearing worse than that at the average UKIP drinks party. I guess your lot are ready to take any rag, tag or bob tail.

[Chad]

Chad, it was only a matter of time before you broke your word. It was all so tediously predictable

Gareth - If you read what I had written, I have ~delivered my pledge to the letter, just moved it to 2009.

Are you suggesting that counts as a broken pledge?

[michael mcgough]

"They are a complete load of nutters who have refined infighting and backstabbing to an artform."
Like Westmoreland & Lonsdale and many other Tory Associations?

This should worry Cameron;
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=2781

[anon]

Anyone who cannot stick around and fight for what they think the conservatives should be, are not welcome in the party anyway. All I have to say on the matter is ........GOOD RIDDENCE!

[Denis Cooper]

Matthew Parris said some sensible things yesterday:

Let's say farewell to the 'ethnic minorities'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-2490974.html

[Mark Fulford]

The insults show how rattled you are.

If UKIP is so perfect, how come you're already threatening to leave them? Most out of character ;-)

[Chad]

I'm not going to leave UKIP Mark. I'll be helping thorugh the locals, the next general election and euro elections to playmy small part in ensuring that UKIP gets its best results ever.

[Mark Fulford]

...anything but a principled rejection of any 'entitlement' to taxpayers funds from UKIP would certainly mark the end of my membership.

[Chad]

Tell you what Mark, what odds would you quote me that I will be a UKIP member in 2009? Let's see what you really believe. Give me the odds, and lets place a bet.

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

The way floating voters think is not the same as the way 32% of readers on this web site think.

Cameron is the best Conservative Leader we have had for ages as my letter in yesterday's Daily Mail proves.

The Conservative Party has to change to win and that is exactly what David is doing in order to win over the floating voters.

Keep up the Superb Work DC and don't let a small minority get you down.

[John Coles]

It's a pity that Chad, who so readily takes advantage of the open posting allowed on Conservative Home, cannot offer the same ready access on his UKIP site and, instead, charges a fee to any potential poster before they can take part in debate. A poor advertisement for debate within UKIP.

[HF]

People who come on here and encourage people to join UKIP, just have no place on the site. This should be for people in the Conservative party to have a sensible discussion.

On his site Chad does not permit debate unless you pay him £2.50 and are a ukip member. When I checked his site the first 4 posts from Chad had zero comments.

What we do need to encourage is a broader alliance working to help the Conservative party win elections, like the Republicans have in USA.

Instead some folk have a tendency to prefer "another party" that attacks and undermines the only hope for the centre right.

Every "new party" formed in past 40 years in England has failed to gain power. Their impact has been to cause the opposite of what they were trying to achieve. UKIP is like the SDP was to Labour. The SDP denied Labour power and enabled a more right wing Conservative party. UKIP has done the same to the Tory party and helped bring Labour to power. Madness.

[Editor]

Chad - you promised to leave this site when I paid my £100 bet to the TPA. I have the technology to keep your promise for you!

***

I do not, of course, think that anything like 43% of Tory members would defect to UKIP. My point is that it only has to be a small number to make an already difficult task of winning the next election - and delivering a Eurosceptic government for Britain - almost impossible.

Scotty says: "Just remind me what the Labour party's majority was in that election and just how vital the Referendum party was in delivering it." That's not the point Scotty. Such was the 1997 lanslide the Referendum Party effect was not decisive. It could have been in a closer contest.

I do not, of course, believe that the Tories only need a Eurosceptic message. We need 'And Theory' messages across the political stage.

The best way of defeating UKIP and the LibDems is to keep reminding waverers that a Tory vote is the only way of ridding Britain of this Labour government.

[Chad]

Chad - you promised to leave this site when I paid my £100 bet to the TPA. I have the technology to keep your promise for you!

Cheeky! I kept my word - I have just had to push it back to 2009 as my expected tie-in with a alternative Czech blog group has been delayed.

That's fair isn't it? Still a kept pledge in Tory terms so it is unfair to criticise me.

The best way of defeating UKIP and the LibDems is to keep reminding waverers that a Tory vote is the only way of ridding Britain of this Labour government.

No it isn't and that is where you are completely missing the point.

Take away the rosette. If there is no material difference in replacing Labour, even if disiullusioned with them then why bother? That is why people have stopped voting.

I hate to keep banging on about it, but your own internal research after the 2005 election showed you had popular policies but a bad image.

To take that research and resolve to change your image and your policies shows total incompetence imho.

[Richard Weatherill]

"The best way of defeating UKIP and the LibDems is to keep reminding waverers that a Tory vote is the only way of ridding Britain of this Labour government."

Yes, Tim - and also to convince them that voting 'Conservative' won't just give us another Labour government in disguise!

[Graham D'Amiral]

Why the fuss about UKIP they are a fringe party, with a handful of councillors out of the thousands contested every year and no where near getting a single MP elected. There's always been this silly idea that if only the tories were a bit more euro sceptic UKIP would disband and back the tories, let's get real they wouldn't they are in no possible sense conservatives. So I say bring it on I'm not bothered about appealing to a few nutters who can't stop obsessing about Europe. Let's focus on dealing with our serious opponents Labour and the lib dems.

[Michael Rutherford]

"If David Cameron does not adopt a more Eurosceptic outlook"

I'm rather confused by this. Cameron has spoken against the Euro, the EU constitution, the lack of democracy and the huge bureaucracy. How more eurosceptic can he be?

Better Off Out is a campaign by the real far right of the party. I hardly think that adopting it as party policy makes the party represent its members, officers and MPs more.

UKIP will possibly gain a few of our key activists, but there is little to suggest that normal voters have any sympathy with them.

[Gunther]

Where do the Conservative votes go?

Look at the result of the Kentish Town by election result yesterday.

Lib Dem 1093, Green 812, Labour 808, Conservative 198.

Lib Dem gain from Labour

The Conservative Candidate is on the short list for Hampstead and Highgate!

[Mark Wadsworth]

Matthew Parris is a top man, always worth reading! You don't have to be a UKIP member to post on Chad's site; the £2.50 is fair enough really as a one-off fee. Our FPTP ensures that we are basically a two-party system and will remain so for the forseeable future; but the smaller parties (Greens, SNP, BNP, UKIP) can be seen as akin to tugboats or pilots, the few trying to drag the larger ships into the right berth!

[Female Candidate]

Editor,

I request you remove Chad's posts from the site and ban him as promised.

Some of us are fighting Europhile Lib and Lab MPs. Please do not allow UKIPers to campaign to keep them in office on Conservative Home.

On his blog Mr. Noble helpfully explains how UKIP wants to work to elect Labour and LibDem supporters of the Euro "this one time".

I implore you not to allow him to canvass for Labour on this website.

[The jabberwock]

Does that mean I and millions like me have no choice but to hold our noses while putting a cross next to 'Conservative' at the next general election?

[Mark Fulford]

...what odds would you quote me that I will be a UKIP member in 2009?

Chad, apart from smirk at your threat, I really don't care whether you do or don't quit UKIP and I'm certainly not going to bet on it.

Due to your high principles and many button issues, your support for any party is flaky. It is naïve to think that a singly party will always accurately reflect your views. A political party can’t possibly operate if every one of its members draws different lines in the sand.

I believe that on Election Day you have no choice but to vote for the party that is closest to your views and has a chance of winning. It was that belief that kept me voting Conservative from 1998 to 2005, even though I didn't like much of the rhetoric.

At the next election we have the same old choice: a Labour or a Conservative government. There are fundamental differences between the two and Labour's only successful attack (with media assistance) has been to blur that line. Every major speech over the last year has shown fundamental differences in approach: Labour will continue to assume more powers and responsibilities for the state, Conservatives will trust individuals more.

Under Cameron's leadership Conservatives will win the next election and with a majority large enough that any vote to UKIP is a meaningless, inconsequential waste.

[anon]

Mark, I am interested in your assertion that we will trust individuals more. I have not seen anything that implies that we will be removing the quangos that make unaccountable decisions on our behalf (regional development assemblies being just one example). In fact quite the opposite, we appear to be in agreement with Labour to take the NHS out of political hands and place in under a separate jurisdiction.

[Realist]

Just for a reality check, UKIP got a grand total of 40 votes in the Horsham byelection last night, less than a quarter of the total polled by the BNP. This was in an area they thought was very promising territory for them. They are an utter irrelevance.

[Mark Fulford]

I am interested in your assertion that we will trust individuals more.

I haven't really been following the NHS debate. But take Hug a Hoodie for example: much of that speech and event was about trusting and empowering third parties to provide solutions; giving them long term no-strings funding. A Labour government would never release control in that way.

In my opinion we still won't be trusting individuals enough, but at least it's movement in the right direction.

[Esbonio]

I agree with Jorgen. If I am tempted not to vote Tory but vote instead for UKIP it won't primarily be because of Europe. It will be because of my utter disenchantment with the Cameron's leadersip and its utter self-regarding metropolitan SDP lookalike navel gazing.

I am also sick and tired of Camerons' supporters continual whining for the Editor to ban those whose opinions they do not share. I am glad to say the Editor tends to treat such demands with the contempt they deserve.

[Chad]

Hi Mark,
All your arguments are simply vehicles to get your chosen rosette into government next time. It's a tribal thing.

That's fair enough, there's some naked self-gain etc, at least you are open about it.

However, the vast majority of the country don't have a desire to "get the Tories in" or "get Labour out" but are seeking a party that will fight for the matters they believe in.

UKIP won't win the next election nor is it likely to win a seat, but it is likely to significantly increase its vote share next time.

As that support progresses towards 10%, suddenly, UKIP becomes included as the fourth choice in all polls instead of being lumped in 'other' and things start to snowball.

We can all easily remember more than one election back, and some of us are thinking more than election forward.

Do you really believe that 'built to last' will last beyond the next election if the Tories lose? No, a new 'strategy' will be adopted.

For us, it is not about switching one identical insincere party for another but about building a values-based alternative that will appeal to those millions of people who have stopped voting completely.

To have a party that is fighting for a common-sense, clear agenda because it truly believes in it is far from meaningless,it is the future.

[JimJam]

Vote UKIP, get NuLab - simple as that.

It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Richard Weatherill]

Quite right, esbonio. As has been pointed out many times before, this isn't a site just for Conservative Party members, but for all conservative-minded people, of any party or none. That surely includes many UKIP members and sympathisers. Some of our more pro-Cameron friends don't quite seem able to grasp this concept.

[Michael McGowan]

"Labour will continue to assume more powers and responsibilities for the state, Conservatives will trust individuals more." Mark, I agree with the first part of this statement. I am far more sceptical about the second part, especially with Cameron at the helm. None of his pronouncements in relation to public services really bear you out on this one, nor does the lacklustre track record of One Nation Tories.

The Tory Party is having to learn the hard way that it is no longer the natural party of those with a centre-right affiliation, especially as the deference vote dies off. In large part that is the Tories' own fault. Unlike the Republicans in the US and the Liberals in Oz, it has for decades failed to nurture the broad coalition which it needs to get elected: Tim's "AND theory". Instead it has played along with the cultural Marxist agenda, shafting its own natural supporters, promising things it has no intention of delivering (notbaly in respect of the EU) and implying things it has no intention of promising. The consequence is that people are no longer scared by the slogan: if you don't vote Tory, Labour will get in, even if they detest Labour too. They simply regard many Tories at Westminster as spivs, shysters and chancers who will say and do anything to get elected.

Chad, I couldn't help noticing that the journeyman barrister Gareth did not answer your questions but as usual indulged in ad hominem abuse. In Gareth's own words, "it is all so tediously predictable".

[Sean Fear]

"Just for a reality check, UKIP got a grand total of 40 votes in the Horsham byelection last night, less than a quarter of the total polled by the BNP. "

Interesting vote wasn't it?

Last night the BNP took 12-18% of the vote in three middle class wards, beating Labour into third place in Southend. They seem to have little difficulty outpolling UKIP now.

[Adam]

If the Conservatives lurch to the right (a la Hague and Howard) where do think the voters on the 'left' of the party will go?

[Esbonio]

Well said Michael McGowan. I would also like to add that whilst I would like to consider myself a one nation Tory, people are entitled to vote for a party which at least takes its own voters interests into account.
Cameron does not give me any sense of such resonance. Instead the leaderhip has eagerly proclaimed its desire to change the party and distance itself from traditional Tory concerns. Evidence suggests Cameron delivers on what he says he will do. That is why I did not vote for him as leader and why I am not minded to vote for him in a general election.

[Mark Fulford]

...your chosen rosette into government next time. It's a tribal thing

Not at all. I see a distinction between Labour and Conservative so, given the realistic choice of Labour or Conservative, I vote Conservative. The Conservative Party doesn’t represent my exact worldview but, within it, I do the best I can to argue the case for my beliefs. There’s nothing rosette about that.

For us, it is not about switching one identical insincere party

To say that the parties are idential you are either blind to the differences or insincere.

To have a party that is fighting for a common-sense, clear agenda because it truly believes in it is far from meaningless,it is the future.

Shall we see how the "common sense" UKIP agenda stands the test of time?

[Cllr. Robert-j Tasker]

Why is it that we have more Europhile party's on the political spectrum when 50-60% of public opinion is in favour of us withdrawing from the EU?

Why is public opinion only represented in 9 MP's and a couple of MEP's who are actually favour of withdrawal - which is exactly what a large majority of the British public want.

[Esbonio]

Adam asks "If the Conservatives lurch to the right (a la Hague and Howard) where do think the voters on the 'left' of the party will go?" It is only a thought but perhaps where some went before them and where they should have gone a long time ago to join their soulmates in NewLanour and the LibDems.

[Mark Fulford]

For Michael and others who doubt the differences, here are some Cameron quotes. Can you imagine Gordon Brown saying a single one of them?

"...and I know that if we trust them, if we give them more power and responsibility they will succeed where the state has failed."

"Conservatives will always promote a nation of enterprise, individual freedom and personal responsibility."

"Our approach: trusting people and sharing responsibility. Or Gordon Brown's approach: creating dependency and removing responsibility."

"Our record is lousy; yours is great - so you should be in charge."

"It means really handing over power. Because we also believe in trusting people, we want to let them get on with what they do best."

"But I'm not pretending I've got the answers. My job is to give a lead, not to take control."

"So today I don't just want to encourage you personally in the fantastic work that you do. I want you to know that the next Conservative government will give you the freedom to do it."

[average young man]

Interesting debate going on here.

I live in IDS country and I have to say I know lots of people who have always been Conservative voters, an dyet many are now telling me they will vote for either UKIP or the BNP. Now I have nothing to do with either of these parties, but it is worrying for me that EVERY time I go out canvassing, our usual supporters are telling me that can't stand what DC is saying, and have no idea what he stands for, so they are considering voting for either UKIP or the BNP.
What is interesting is they don't mention Europe or immigration as being the main issue for switching, but crime and taxes.
Now personally I do not think this will have too much of an effect on Iain's majority, but in seats where we are second to either Labour or the Liberals by 5000 votes or less, it could lead to disasters..

[Michael McGowan]

Correct. As we know from the thousands of turkeys who voted for Christmas in 1997, 2001 and 2005, they will go to Labour and the Lib Dems.....although, if the left of the Party have any real commitment to liberalism and meritocracy, they should know that Labour and the Lib Dems will deliver neither. They are old-fashioned statist, spendthrift, often authoritarian parties.

[Jack Stone]

UKIP are nothing more than a small bunch of right-wing nutters who will never have any chance of forming a government in this country.
UKIP is nothing more than BNP lite and I supsect the majority of those who support UKIP would willingly get into bed with the BNP if they saw it as a way to get into power.
David Cameron as given the party its best opinion poll ratings since 1997 because he is reflecting the attitudes and beliefs of todays Britain.
Anyone who says those viesws are socialist or left-wing is reading what they want to read into Davids words.
We have a section of our party who have lead as to defeat in the last two elections who are so dogmatice and extreme that they would rather see Goron Brown in power than a Conservative leader who doesn`t sign up to there agenda in full.
They should not be allowed to ruin the best chance the party has had to defaet Labour for ten years by there disloyal and stupied antics.

[Jonathan Mackie]

A bit of a reality check would be useful.

Europe and the EU was cited as important enough to determine voting patterns by only 3% of the electorate in November 2006.

Put into some perspective immigration is cited by 38%, crime by 32% and health by 31%.

Europe is a non-issue in electoral terms. That is why a monomanical UKIP is irrelevant. They need a whole new persepctive and dare I say it image if they are to capture any sort of voting share.

The BNP are much more likely to become the 'fourth' party, particularly when people get into the privacy of the polling station. They are also much more likely to win a parliamentary seat in 2008/09. In fact I would go as far as saying they will win at least one seat.

It is also worth noting that poverty and inequality is identified as important by only 5% of the electorate, less than those who think morality is an electoral factor. The environment doesn't score much higher at only 11%.

[Cllr Bruce Mackie]

I have read with great interest the contributions on this subject.There are those who are saying along with Mark that it is only a minority(32%) of those polled in the site who are against the move to the left by DC and that they are welcome to move out of the Party. Well even if they did not move out and just did not renew their membership or worse still,stay at home on polling day then over the piece,it would have an effect on the outcome of the election. I am saying that we should all stay in the Party and fight to get changes which fall more in line with the majority of Members. We want our Party back and not have as it now seems,a Party which has been hijacked by an unrepresentative minority. Joining any other Party and going off in the huff is not the answer, much as I am sometimes as fed up as others with the way things are going.Stay in and fight for our Party is the answer.

[Michael McGowan]

Mark, I do not doubt your good faith for one moment. I know Cameron has SAID all these things but in practice what would the Tories do and what have they done in the past? That is the litmus test for me. Education is a case in point. The summary rejection of vouchers (now being espoused by the LEFT in Continental Europe and the US) says it all: the Tories don't believe in ordinary people having autonomy over key aspects of their lives. They should accept that they will be "looked after" by their self-selecting elders and betters. They should pay their (very heavy) taxes, shut up and be grateful. Their elders and betters of course can buy the autonomy they deny to others.

[anon]

"Does that mean I and millions like me have no choice but to hold our noses while putting a cross next to 'Conservative' at the next general election?"

Well that's what I did in 2001 and 2005.
Unfortunately millions of others didn't. They voted LibDem or stayed at home instead.
Making an argument that the party should swing to the right for electoral reasons is madness. All we need electorally is clear blue water on a couple of key issues - "Prison Works" is one. I'm certain the policy reviews will deliver more.

Then once Cameron is in power I hope he will deliver on promoting a society of personal responsibility, and sweep away the tide of NuLab red tape, regulation and micromanagement which is the real problem with this country today.

Lower taxes would be nice, but getting rid of the incompetent nanny-state managerialists is vastly more important. I hope Cameron understands this, although some of his public statements do make me worry.

[Cassilis]

I'm getting heartily tired of these constant discussions around how Cameron's reforms are playing with what are variously described as the 'old guard', 'traditional Tories', 'right-wingers' etc. I've spent 9 months or so defending my decision to join the party in the face of accusations from friends & family that, at root, the Conservative Party is nasty and unreformable. It's at times like this I begin to wonder if they are right...

As one of the 'new boys' I know how easily my thoughts on the party might be dismissed by the 'old guard' but I no longer care. It’s about time someone rescued the party (with 400+ years of history) from the coterie of selfish, homophobic, xenophobic and narrow-minded idiots who have risen to prominence in the party and friendly media circles over the last 30 years - far too many of whom seem to be represented here. Thatcherism had its place (largely borne of economic necessity) but it was no more 'true' as a conservative creed than anything Cameron is proposing now (or Heath, Macmillan etc.) Just as critics on the left are wrong to label Cameron’s reforms as some clever triangulation device designed purely to win elections, critics on the right are equally erroneous in their characterisation of his efforts as somehow an affront to the very soul and ethos of conservatism. The Conservatives have long been a broad church and the party’s ability to switch between different strands of ideas is not simply the product of electoral calculation – it reflects genuine tensions within conservatism as a body of thought and has actually been critical to the electoral success the party has enjoyed over the last few hundred years.

Conservatives were legislating for trade union rights a generation before the Labour party was founded, establishing public health projects before Aneurin Bevan was born. The ‘middle way’ ethos of Macmillan’s government was expanding the welfare state in the late 50’s / early 60’s before Blair was out of short trousers. Against this background the fact that a throwaway reference to a left-wing commentator (Polly Toynbee) should create such histrionics from some in the Tory party is deeply embarrassing and simply confirms the fears among the wider electorate that we’re not fit to govern. No-one suggested everything Ms Toynbee has ever written is correct or her solutions are the only options but to cite her convictions about the importance of cohesion in society and the potentially corrosive effects inequality can have is perfectly reasonable and totally consistent with Conservatism.

To my mind Cameron needs to be even more adversarial in this debate – offer a robust, historically-informed and no-nonsense defence of liberal conservatism aimed, not at the country, but at those in his own party who remain stubbornly attached to an outdated and thoroughly malign understanding of what Conservatism actually means. Yes it’s about small government but not ever-decreasing government. Take the tax argument - as the economy grows tax cuts may be possible but not at the expense of pre-school education for some of the poorest people in our society, not at the expense of drug rehabilitation programmes that may actually cut crime in the future, not at the expense of benefits and support for people who have come to this great country because their lives were in danger back home, not at the expense of world-class health provision for everyone regardless of their ability to pay. He needs to openly say there is no place in the Conservatives for people who believe homosexuality should be illegal or that sexual orientation should have any bearing on where someone is employed etc., no place for people who think immigration is an unalloyed evil and should be stopped, no place for people who aren’t interested in relative poverty or social cohesion, no place for people who think a family can only ever be a man and a woman. Even within these parameters there are still left/right arguments to be had about solutions and how we prevent certain problems from arising but we need to be more prescriptive about the no-go areas and reclaim the real soul of the party.

[anon]

"immigration is cited by 38%"

Interesting, although bear in mind that this does not mean 38% are anti-immigration.

[Jonathan Mackie]

Mark Fulford - How about these quotes from Brown? Anything there that Cameron couldn't and isn't saying?

"I believe that there is indeed a golden thread which runs through British history not just of the individual standing firm against tyranny but also of common endeavour in villages, towns and cities"

"third sector ready to rival market and state, with a quiet revolution in how voluntary action and charitable work serves the community"

"I believe in the independence and strength of a thriving voluntary and community sector in Britain both now and in the future - a strength and independence that we all should and do value."

"community not in any sense as some forced coming together, some sentimental togetherness for the sake of appearances, but out of a largely unquestioned conviction that we could learn from each other and call on each other in times of need, that we owed obligations to each other because our neighbours were part also of what we all were: the idea of neighbourliness woven into the way we led our lives"

"some people say you have only yourself or your family, I saw every day how individuals were encouraged and strengthened, made to feel they belonged and in turn contributed as part of a intricate local network of trust, recognition and obligation encompassing family, friends, school, church, hundreds of local associations and voluntary organisations."

[anon]

I agree with Jonathan's point regarding the BNP. I fear that it is they as opposed to UKIP who will make a surprise gain at the next election (I have previously predicted either Burnley or Oldham).

Perhaps more interestingly was my partners statement this morning who had previously thought DC was a breath of fresh air and different is now not so sure about him and stated that she will probably vote Labour at the next election. Bearing in mind that she is in the 25-35 demographic and a professional I would like to understand what people think that this means?

[E L Marberry]

When are Conservatives going to abandon their temporary madness over Europe. I have to say I thought DC's comments yesterday were the most positive by a Conservative leader for a decade, thankfully.

The British people will never love the EU, but they are not so daft as to see hostility to it as anything other than a threat to our economic well being.

[Jonathan Mackie]

No anon, but it does mean that 38% feel it is of such importance that it may determine which way they cast their vote.

[Londoner]

Michael Rutherford a bit up the thread said:

" "If David Cameron does not adopt a more Eurosceptic outlook"

I'm rather confused by this. Cameron has spoken against the Euro, the EU constitution, the lack of democracy and the huge bureaucracy. How more eurosceptic can he be?"

I agree that Euroscepticism was always expressed by Cameron, and has been assumed as a given by many of us who care deeply about the threat (and reality) of EU interference in things it shouldn't. We simply would never have voted for Cameron last year if we had not believed that.

I still believe it, despite the dent to its credibility from the delay in leaving the EPP but I am prepared to accept that that may have been pragmatic realism - after all, if our MEPs try to resist in 2009 when they will have been elected on that basis, they will not have a leg to stand on. As it was, they could legitimately claim that they were elected at a time when they were affiliated to the EPP.

However, I am a little worried by reports today of what Cameron said yesterday praising the Euro Commission. Hopefully it is just trying to create goodwill so when the tough stuff comes it can't be said that he is not taking a balanced view. Personally, despite going back far enough to have voted "No" in the 1975 Referendum, I have always thought the environment to be an area where the EU has a role and could do a lot of good. But the worry is whether this might herald a dilution of his previous stance?

That is why I think the Editor is absolutely right to remind the powers that be that there is now somewhere else to go. Whilst Cameron is not going to compromise his basic tactics, strategy and direction on modernisation etc for the sake of probably a relatively small-scale potential defection to UKIP, it is essential for him that he does not open himself up any further (i.e. beyond what happened on the EPP issue) to attack on the Europe issue itself. UKIP may not be very credible; it may well be counter-productive to the outcome of the election if we actually voted for it; BUT it is not a racist party like the BNP, it does hold many Conservative views unlike the Greens, and therefore one COULD vote for it (many Conservative members/activists have in the past at one or other European Parliament election already).

Us long term loyal Party members and voters naturally find some of the changes uncomfortable - different people will find discomfort in different aspects - but most of us are prepared to go along with what is happening because we understand the need to get off the 31% flatlining of the previous 12 or 13 years by broadening the coalition. But the line must be held on Europe or all hell will brake loose. Further, diluting that line will gain no popularity from any new constituency in return for the risk of defections. Few long term Tory voters are going to change their votes over the "A" List or adopting Labour's NHS policy or even a few stupid remarks about Toynbee, but for Europe they might. That is what I think the Editor is saying and he is right to say it.

[malcolm]

As always Jack an articulate and lucid summary of the facts!
It is not great when anyone quits the Conservative party for any reason but I suspect that those who leave us for UKIP will soon become disillusioned with their incessant factionalism and backbiting against which the Conservative Party pales by comparison. They may also become disillusioned by the fact that they are essentially a single issue party who pay lip service to other subjects.
Having said that I sincerely hope that Cameron does pay attention to the discontent that is apparant and that we adopt a far more robust approach not only to our relationship with the EU but also to Crime and Immigration too.

[Jorgen]

People who come on here and encourage people to join UKIP, just have no place on the site.

Well, I for one will probably vote UKIP because my vote will go to where the Conservative policies are. I am faithful to my principles.

JimJam said Vote UKIP, get NuLab - simple as that.

Well, Cameron - whose principles seem to be very flexible - knew that when he revoked nearly everything the Conservative Party stood for. It is more fair to blame him.

[Sean Fear]

Cassilis,

And if all those people who were told there was "no place" for them in the Party were to take you at your word, you'd be left with a very small sect indeed, a kind of niche political party.

[Mark Fulford]

@ Jonathan 11:38

Anybody could say any of those Gordon Brown quotes, but you will never hear Gordon Brown say

"Our record is lousy; yours is great - so you should be in charge."

[Michael McGowan]

E.L. Marberry has lost the plot: Dave can say whatever he likes, as loudly as he likes. For the last thirty years, the Conservative Party has, to put it mildly, done little or nothing, in or out of office, to alleviate the most corrupting and anti-democratic aspects of the EU project. That is not likely to change given the prominence at the Court of Cameron of Gummer, Heseltine, Clarke and Patten.

As for Cassilis' diatribe, this misses the point too. I am not anti-gay nor do I think that immigration is an unalloyed evil (though I do not think it is an unalloyed good either). Under Cameron, none of our root problems will be tackled. The man who really really likes his country will tell us that there's nothing wrong with health and education that a little tinkering by well-meaning patricians like him cannot put right. He isn't modern. He is a regression, with an iPod, to semi-feudal paternalism which, in tersm of its EFFECTS, is much the same as the agenda of the left.

If you really think that the NHS represents world-class healthcare delivered to everybody regardless of the ability to pay, you really ought to get out a bit more. And if you think that all social conservatives (of whom I am not one) should be expelled from the Conservative Party, then you can look forward to many many more years of opposition.

[Richard Weatherill]

"They may also become disillusioned by the fact that they [UKIP] are essentially a single issue party who pay lip service to other subjects."

I'm not sure that's true any longer, Malcolm. They certainly seem to have clear policies on Education and Income Tax at least (whether one agrees with them is a different matter). As others have pointed out, there may come a point where people are prepared to vote for UKIP because they are perceived to have a range of genuinely 'conservative' policies in many areas, irrespective of their stance on EU membership.

BTW, Tim, would I be right in thinking that you've now banned Chad?

[Jonathan Mackie]

Mark

Perhaps not but it is contextual and that is the point. Selectively quoting Cameron and Brown is useless. They are very close on voluntary and civic action.

[E L Marberry]

All these people who hate the Conservative Party should leave. They obviously love backbiting and squabbling, so UKIP or one of the fragments that reguilarly spin off it would be a much better home. Go on, leave, you won't be missed.

[Mark Fulford]

They are very close on voluntary and civic action.

I honestly don't believe they are. Under Gordon Brown voluntary organisations such as C-Far, that had a proven track record, have gone into liquidation for lack of funding. I do not think that David Cameron would have allowed that to happen.

[Eric Wilson]

The Conservative supporters constantly call U.KI.P.members nutters. This shows that U.K.I.P. have got them badly rattled. At the next G.E. U.K.I.P.could influence the result in upto 100 seats,depriving the Conservatives of power.Until the Conservatives produce a realistic policy on the E.U. then they are doomed to opposition.

[Michael McGowan]

Mr Marberry, not an edifying sight to see you throwing your toys out of the pram! It is not a question of hating the Conservative Party: it is a question of having no confidence in it to deliver a meaningful alternative to the authoritarian failure of Labour. Whose fault is that? Do you think the Tories need a bit more time? Isn't ten years in opposition enough?

[Londoner]

The long post from the new Party member, Cassilis, is well worth a read and much is very sensible about the historic context.

However, I think he/she is wrong in urging Cameron to be more adversarial within the party. Unlike the Labour Party in 1983, the Tory Party in 2005 was not encumbered with extreme unelectable and fundamentally wrong policies. Rather it was suffering from a 15 year image problem, leaders who were not sufficiently attractive personalities to the country at large and too narrow a focus on some areas of policy which, whilst the country often agreed with the party on them, missed out whole areas which many were more concerned about.

There is therefore no need to confront the party as a macho tactic, drive out whole swathes of opinion etc. The party is a coalition. It might have got a bit narrower than it should have been but you do not broaden it by exchanging the ground you have for the new ground. You add the new ground.

Cssilis says that Cameron "needs to openly say there is no place in the Conservatives for people who believe homosexuality should be illegal or that sexual orientation should have any bearing on where someone is employed etc., no place for people who think immigration is an unalloyed evil and should be stopped, no place for people who aren’t interested in relative poverty or social cohesion, no place for people who think a family can only ever be a man and a woman."

I don't think there is a need to say any of these things as anyone who espouses any of that (with the exception of the relative poverty bit - I'll come back to that) is a vanishingly small minority and for Cameron to attack it just plays into opponents' hands. "Relative poverty" was an odd one to stick in there because whereas it would be futile to attack on the others because there are so few, on relative poverty he would be attacking about 80% of the party. "Relative poverty" is part of leftist intellectual framework. It may well be that Cameron meant something different from all the leftists who use the term - if so, he should have invented a new term not gone out to shock by adopting a socialist one. He could even have used an old Tory one; "one nation".

[Jorgen]

All these people who hate the Conservative Party should leave.

Some of us are here waiting for it to go back to the pre-DC policies. Though many of us see Cameron as another Ted Heath, it is wrong to say that we hate him.

[Cassilis]

Londoner,

Thanks for the tacit endorsement but I still think a more adversarial approach is necessary. That these people represent a "vanishing small minority" is by no means clear and more to the point however small they are they remain disproportionately vocal and are too often indulged by a left-leaning media happy to talk up the tensions in conservative ranks. They are not a wing / tradition to be tolerated or accommodated but a clique of far right ideologues who have no place in a modern centre-right party.

[Graeme Archer]

Adam @ 10.56:
If the Conservatives lurch to the right (a la Hague and Howard) where do think the voters on the 'left' of the party will go?

Good point Adam. Of course it's even more complicated than that -- those of us who the "UKIP-right" continually describe as some sort of metropolitan, social-democratic left wing are, naturally, "right wing" conservatives on a whole host of issues from the socially "authoritarian" to the 19th century Manchester liberal. I'm using inverted commas just to denote what a redundant discussion it can be (albeit stimulating while it lasts).

More and more I like Charles Moore's talks about how he thinks Conservatism is a disposition. Whatever else it is, it's certainly not an ideology, still less is it an ideology which vibrates more visibly in the hearts of those who care most about the EU than in the hearts of those who care less.

We never discuss aesthetics here, do we? Yet there's a lot of taste and value judgements going on all the time. It's why I dislike UKIP. I think it's a valid response to UKIP. I can tell from some of the posts and unsolicited email I receive whenever I post something contentious that others have an aesthetic response to "my" Toryism as well. I think Cameron "gets this", and I suspect, but can't prove, that people who think that they can demonstrate ideological purity vis a vis one or other nostrum (most frequently one's attitude to the EU) do not. They are stuck, in a (demonstrably) futile attempt to prove, in a deductive sense, that one can only be a Conservative if one adheres to atomic positions of policy. Since politics is not mathematics, this is clearly impossible.

[Sean Fear]

Cassilis, would you say that people who think the same way as, say, Andrew Rosindell or Anne Widdecombe should be expelled from the Conservative Party?

[malcolm]

Really Richard? I did see their very brief Spending policy document but am not aware of their Education policy despite looking at UKIP blogs from time to time. I suspect 99.99% of the population would be unaware too.

[Michael McGowan]

Graeme, it is in large part aesthetics that put me off Cameron. I don't want to be absent-mindedly patted on the head by a patrician who has done rather well out of life, thanks to inherited wealth and connections, and whose guiding maxim seems to be: I want office, I don't want to rock the BBC's boat and if that means adopting Labour's failures, so be it.

Cassilis seems to have spent too much time reading the collected works of Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo. Perhaps we could remember that Portillo is a failed politician who over his career has flown more flags of convenience than the average supertanker. During his erratic political odyssey, he has shown remarkably poor judgment. His suggestions for "reforming" the Conservative Party would almost certainly split it .......which is in many ways what I think he wants. Many of his stances seem to be personal animosity, dressed up as political differences.

[a-tracy]

Mark F - You say "Conservatives will always promote a nation of enterprise, individual freedom and personal responsibility."

but what I've been listening to recently doesn't match with your claim e.g.

I think it was Mr Gummer MP suggested a 35 hour week - how does that promote individual freedom.

DC said he wanted to be "Changing the curriculum to ensure a proper focus on the core subjects of English, Maths, Science, History and Modern Languages." - We've blogged before about removing the option to drop History and Modern languages after Year 9, I believe that 3 years of 2.5 hours per week of German or French gives our children sufficient neighbouring Country culture and holiday language ability and if it doesn't why doesn't it? Being forced to do two years more aids individual freedom and choice does it?

[wasp]

You won't win any seats off UKIP

[Graeme Archer]

I always appreciate Michael McGowan's comments. I sort of think that the fact that Michael is someone I enjoy reading, even when I don't always agree with his conclusions, is almost the point of the Conservative Party.

[HF]

Eric Wilson "At the next G.E. U.K.I.P.could influence the result in upto 100 seats,depriving the Conservatives of power. Until the Conservatives produce a realistic policy on the E.U. then they are doomed to opposition."
This view sums up many UKIP activists. UKIP was set up with the desire of causing so much harm to the Conservative party that it implodes.

When Hague talked about saving the Euro did UKIP stop campaigning against him? No.

When IDS who was involved in the euro rebellions became leader did UKIP back him? No.

UKIP could have folded and re-joined but they did not because they want our party to die, more than they want an effective opposition to the EC.

Nutty? It is more like the attitude of an ex-lover who becomes obsessed with a former partner to the point of wanting them harmed.

[voreas06]

I know very little about UKIP. My sole experience is when I see and hear Farrage on television he comes across as an old style typically oily, weasly politician, in fact I see an awful lot of Ken Livingstone in Farrage they both appear to believe they are something special and have whiny sneering contempt for everyone else. So from the one part of UKIP that recieves national attention i.e its leader I dread to think what the party stands for and I can't see that I will have much in common with its members.

[Michael McGowan]

Thank you, Graeme. In the same vein, I always enjoy reading your comments.....and I think I agree with them far more than I disagree!

[Rudyard.]

Sorry but we bear absolutely no resemblance to the real Conservative Party with David Cameron at the helm.We are floating toward the rocks.We are fortunate and still have a few more years before the next General Election,but we have the 2007 Locals and the EU Elections,the next six months will tell us all about ourselves and if David Cameron was the correct choice for Leader.I know we will be bitterly saddened by the Local results in a few months or so,is it too late to elect and promote another new Leader? I don't think it is.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Cassilis

Having read your requirements for those that wish to join or vote Conservative, I am sure that you will be pleased to know that on many of the necessary qualifications you enumerate that I will not qualify for the honour or, indeed, privilege of voting for the Party. Thank you for your guidance. I will be attending church on Sunday and will offer a pray to convert me into the paths of rightousness such as followed by yourself. The devil is in your detail. Please, God, make me love the EU, uncontrolled immigration, high taxation, Hoodies and help me save the planet by raising airfares (although I understand that I will pay less taxes as compensation. This will give me more money to pay the increase in air travel). Please, God, let me not be a Pharisee and only follow the path of the Chosen One, Dave, in order that I might gain eternal salvation and be allowed vote Tory. Amen.

[Yet Another Anon]

Every "new party" formed in past 40 years in England has failed to gain power. Their impact has been to cause the opposite of what they were trying to achieve. UKIP is like the SDP was to Labour. The SDP denied Labour power and enabled a more right wing Conservative party.
The Green Party certainly had an influence on the debate as all 3 main parties rushed to claim to be the true Greens in the hope of securing votes, the Referendum Party elected no MP's but the Conservative Party finally accepted that the UK would not join the Euro without a Yes vote in a Single Currency, really as soon as Denis Healey failed to become party leader and Michael Foot won then all possibility of Labour winning a majority in 1983 went out the window, Neil Kinnock equally although narrowing the gap would still have lost anyway, it might have lead John Smith to succeed Neil Kinnock after 1987 and lead Labour to victory in 1992 though? There were irreconcilable differences over policy that lead to the formation of the SDP, in Scotland, Wales and Ulster parties have emerged that have had effects - the SNP although not having achieved independence through pressure achieved devolution as did Plaid Cymru (both new parties) and in Ulster new parties such as the DUP and UKUP have managed to gain the upper hand inside Unionism to lead the fight against surrender to the IRA\Sinn Fein.

[Yet Another Anon]

You won't win any seats off UKIP
2.2% of the vote at the last General Election and many more people agreeing with much if not all that they say.

[HF]

Yet Another Anon said Greens have had influence. Yes, but their main votes are in the Euros and their they clearly have reduced the number of MEPs that the previously "greener" Lib Dems have achieved. But for Greens they have achieved no power.

As to the welsh and Scots I limited my statement to England.

As Con Home says "UKIP candidates are the Europhiles' useful idiots" Labour and Lib Dems love them becuase of the damage they do inflict on us.

[Cassilis]

Too many people to mention seem to have entirely missed the central point in my earlier post.

Since its birth the conservative party has been an extraordinarily broad church, swinging between paternalism or individualism, socially liberal or socially conservative, laissez-faire or protectionism etc. It's one of the world's most successful political parties and no honest or balanced analysis of that historical success can tie it to one or other of those political positions - on the contrary it's a direct product of our willingness to adapt.

Yet from the reaction to Cameron's ascendancy you'd be forgiven for thinking that several hundred years of party history finally crystallised in the early 80's and that Thatcherism somehow represents the nadir of Conservative thought from which the party must never now demur. This is errant, dangerous nonsense and if people who believe it ever gain ascendancy in the party again the party is finished - a curious legacy for Mrs T's supporters to be hastening...

[DavidDPB]

Bearing in mind the Conservative Party is the party that in one year opposed the partial extension of the franchise to some male householders as unconstitutional and just plain wrong, and the following year extended the franchise to a vastly greater extent than that, it's a bit odd to see these complaints that Cameron isn't a Conservative because he is not sticking to one particular set of policy positions.

I do wonder how many of the potential UKIP backers would have coped in the party of MacMillan, who would probably have recognised Cameron as a Conservative in the way that he did not Thatcher, or even Churchill, who was part of a Liberal Government that was quite redistributive for the time.

[Londoner]

Cassilis

I agreed with your point about the historical context but you are definitely losing me with your post at 12.25. I would challenge you to find one Conservative MP who believes that:

1. Homosexuality should be illegal
2. Sexual orientation should have any bearing on where someone is employed
3. Immigration is an unalloyed evil
4. or who have no interest in social cohesion.

You are tilting at windmills and thus going around demanding that people leave, or asking the Leader to pick a fight (for effect) with his own activists, is deeply unconstructive. The leader needs to try to win people over, not expell them and, if there are still some who disagree, then, so long as they respect the rules (such as not actively supporting other party's candidates etc), that's democracy.

I have not mentioned your belief that there should be "no place for people who think a family can only ever be a man and a woman" because I think that must be code for something else as I cannot believe you have identified Conservatives who think that a household of an Army widow, her mother and her children are not a family. If you mean that you don't want anyone who has doubts about civil partnerships (perhaps because they don't think gays will enjoy divorce court fights over finances any more than heterosexuals) or gay adoption, or who thinks it preferable when people have children to give the children the respect they deserve by bothering to get married, then you are looking for a very narrow belief-set indeed; and "metropolitan social liberal" (inverted commas, inverted commas) as I am, I'd have to leave this New Model Party along with our anti-Cameron colleagues.

[HF]

Cassilis I agreee with your point.

My concern with the party is the lack of professionalism in its operation.

Take the Toynbee matter. When it hit the press the right reaction would have been to disassociate the party from having a preference for Toynbee over Churchill. That could have killed it dead.

Instead we had Toynbee given a platform to attack us for several days.

It is as if the Leadership cared more for the feelings of Greg Clarke than the party.

This is now being cited by people as the reasons they are resigning, but where is a public statement from the Leadership that they refute the Toynbee link? Was nothing sent out?

So our PR says very little and the problem just gets worse.

[Esbonio]

Well said Londoner at 13.50. I am sure we are all grateful for Cassilis's sanctimony, inclusiveness and otiose history lesson.

[Cassilis]

Londoner,

It's a matter of balance and I'm not suggesting mass expulsions according to some narrowly defined set of beliefs - what I'm asking is that Cameron be more explicit about his beliefs, their historical precedent in conservative thought and crucially the degree to which the parameters of legitimate opinion have shifted in a progressive direction over the last 20 years.

Against this background it's legitimate for him to say that "doubts about civil partnerships" or "gay adoption" are now beyond those parameters (just as doubts about mixed race marriage or adoption have been for many years). Yes the party will always carry the odd rebel idiot - what party doesn't - but such beliefs need to be pushed to the fringe and ridiculed.

If that means some party activists follow so be it.

[Jon Gale]

Of course Nu Labour and the Conservative Parties are relatively close (but not identical) on many policy issues - Tony Blair's Clause 4 Moment (tm) was rejecting Socialism, and he has spent the last 10 years stealing any faintly popular or sucessful Tory policy.

Private sector involvement in healthcare.
Support for Trident.
Atlanticism.
"Tough" on Crime (well, talking about it).
Monetarism (not messing about with interest rates in order to reduce unemployment).
Not joining the Euro, Referendum on the Euro Constitution, "fighting" for our rebate (well, talking about it).
The Education bill giving more independence and choice (passed with Tory support).

(He has also of course failed on many of the above and massively increaed the tax burden, regulation, immigration, introduced devolution and minimum wage and other more lefty things)

The answer for the Tory Party is not to run ever further to the right in order to regain clear blue water. Thatcher massively increased funding for the NHS and didn't change to a social insurance model (nor did Michael Howard suggest it). But when the 'softer, nicer' Mr Cameron expresses his support for the NHS and rules out a social insurance scheme he is declared "socialist" by some on this site.

We had become too focussed on few core areas - Europe, immigration, taxes. At the last election I suspect that everyone in country had heard about our immigration policy but that only a tiny minority had heard about our policies on health, education, transport, etc. Combined with which is the fact that our image was so bad that our policies were popular until they were known as our policies.

I dont agree with everything Cameron comes out with, but he seems to recognise that 1) we must talk about a broader range of things than the ones that most interest Tories. 2) we must soften our image. Phase 1 was about talking about things other than traditional Tory issues. Green issues do both of the aims above. 3) We have to be pragmatic e.g. Large tax cuts will frighten the public into thinking we will slash public services and lose us the election, so he has come up with a more gradual, less fightening way: Sharing the proceeds of growth between public services and tax cuts. Over a parliament taxes will fall, even if not as much as some of us would like. Its a compromise, but then, thats politics.

[malcolm]

Good post Jon.

[Sean Fear]

Cassiliss, "progressive" (ie left wing) thought is very much opposed to mixed race adoption, in this country. You would find that it is virtually impossible for a white person to adopt a black or mixed race child.

Personally, I think it is entirely legitimate for a Conservative to hold doubts about civil partnerships or gay adoption - and I think it would be ridiculous for these issues to be made some sort of litmus test for what views party members are allowed to express.

It's apparent to me that your type of Conservative Party would be anything but a broad Church.

[Michael McGowan]

Jon, Tony Blair never gave up on socialism. This is one of the huge errors of perception made by the Tories. He and Brown merely switched from (i) ownership and high taxation to (ii) politicised regulatory control and high taxation as the medium for achieving state control of society. This is a Government which has consistently talked right and acted left....as people like Sion Simon have been proud to boast!

On the evidence so far, Cameron is in danger of relegating ordinary people for the foreseeable future to expensive poor quality healthcare and state education. To do something better would require him to challenge the left, the BBC and the Guardian which he will not do. His opposition to vouchers and social insurance-based healthcare is worse than "socialist"
....it is a steadfast refusal to give ordinary people value for their taxes and genuine autnomy over their own lives: the kind of autonomy that a wealthy patrician like him already enjoys.

[Derek Buxton]

Just give us back a proper Conservative Party, the current excuse for one is a cross between Nu-Labour and the Lib-Dems. Let's get one thing straight, Cameron is not and never will be a EUrosceptic. He wants to get his nose in the trough ASAP. He has no interest in Great Britain, he has profited from it and is now able to do as he likes, meanwhile the rest of us can go to hell.