[email protected]: The Ten Troughs

In the fourth of a series of ten point guides to David Cameron's first year as Tory leader, ConservativeHome looks at the 'ten biggest troughs' of the last twelve months.

1. It didn't take one month before the right-of-centre press started to worry and worry again and again about Project Cameron.  Lord Tebbit launched his first serious attack on David Cameron's leadership in January when he encouraged the Tory leader to focus more on the bread and butter issues of pensions, schools and hospitals.  He would later accuse the Tory leader of trying to "purge the memory of Thatcherism" and of alienating bedrock voters.
2. The first results of ConservativeHome's poll of grassroots members confirmed membership hostility to the A-list and to the leader's policy on new grammar schools.  On many subsequent occasions the poll would illustrate the gap between Project Cameron and large numbers of grassroots activists.
3. David Cameron's attack on UKIP members as "cloest racists" and "fruitcakes" is widely condemned and gives UKIP the oxygen of publicity.
4. The MIrror's photo scoop that showed a Government driver following the bicycling Tory leader with clean shirt, polished shoes and briefcase - and which was later acknowledged as regrettable by the Tory leader (click on image on right to enlarge).
5. Constant problems with the A-list including a shortage of women applicants, the unwillingness of A-listers to apply for difficult seats and a determination by local associations to choose non A-listers.
6. A scribbled oak tree became the new Tory logo although the party could have saved itself the £40,000 charge if it had used the one ConservativeHomies devised for free.  The logo was leaked ten days before it was due to be launched.
7. The lowest moment of the year came when the LibDems came close to unseating the Tories in the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election.  Since that by-election the Tories have done very little to address the danger of stay-at-home-supporters.
8. The delay to the promise to leave the EPP wasn't just about Europe - for many grassroots Tories it struck at David Cameron's reputation for trustworthiness.
9. The delay to the unsuccessful hunt for a London Mayoral candidate - predicted and predictable and part of CCHQ's continuing inadequacy.
10. Despite suggestions to the contrary, ConservativeHome calculated that Tory membership has probably fallen since David Cameron's election.

The first ten point guide in this series looked at The Peaks of DC's first year, the second at 'Modernising Moments' and the third at 'Reassurance Moments'.  The fifth and final post in this series will look at The Quotations of the last year.

Comments

[Larry Green]

Appalling! I still can't believe I voted for this man. I suppose I was swept along on a wave of hysteria.

There must be many more like me.

[John]

Appalling! Ahead in the polls for the first time in 14 years - how dare he!

[Jorgen]

Ahead in the polls for the first time in 14 years - how dare he!

Yes, but on leftie policies - how dare he!

[Klamm]

The biggest trough for white men is the announcement of the A-LIst.

It signalled the end of their political ambitions based on factors they cannot change. That is, their gender.

[HF]

I disagree that the logo was a low. Maybe for the folk who run Con Home, but not among the majority of Members where it barely registered. The logo looks younger, fresh and improves our attractivenes to younger voters. Many more gains than losses.

A missing low was the Polly Toynbee episode which caused real damage without gaining voters. Sloppy policy co-ordination and sloppy PR combined with a "foot in mouth" Clarke were the causes of that one.

[James Maskell]

The polls are plateauing at 38%. I dont think theres cause for celebration in that. Brown stays Prime Minister.

Since you start as you mean to go on, this year was about setting boundaries, and the boundaries we have set have ensured that our Policy Groups are restricted in what they can propose. First impressions mean a lot as we know. He still comes across as a toff telling people what they should be doing, when he has no idea what its like.

[Happy Tory]

Some of these are just the inevitable pain of change. Others are interesting, as they teach useful lessons. Number 4 for instance. The lesson must be something about integrity vs spin. Stay real. I think that Cameron has notably high integrity, but it's hard to hang on to that when you're surrounded by people trying to get you to do something new and newsworthy every few minutes. Number 8 is the other big lesson, in my opinion. Don't promise something you can't do. And do what you say you'll do. I think Cameron has shown that he's an extraordinarily fast learner. ConHome readers - hold your nerve, he'll get us there.

[HF]

I agree that No. 7 was "The lowest moment of the year came when the LibDems came close to unseating the Tories in the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election."

Since then the party seems to have done nothing substantial to address this systemic failure which goes back more than 10 years.

So how can we help bring pressuure on this?
Could Con Home run a separate thread on this in the near future to actually look at the by election performance going back some years and then interview Francis and anyone elese with responsibility for the party's machinery asking what have you done?

[Scotty]

"The polls are plateauing at 38%. I dont think theres cause for celebration in that"

ICM poll November 2005
Con 33% Lab38% Libdem 19%

ICM poll November 2006
Con 39% Lab 31% Libdem 20%

James, change that 38% to 31% because that comment would be better used to describe Labour's position in the polls.
We need about 43% of the vote to be assured of a conservative government but an 8% lead over Labour is encouraging.

[Colin]

The members voted him in therefore have got what they deserved. More spin and puff.

The country however deserved better for the Leader of, alledgedly, HM Opposition.

More spin and puff. Little wonder that Blair may say that Cameron will get a fist from Brown.

[Mark Fulford]

How was it David Cameron's fault that Bromley and Chislehurst gave us a scare? The local association picked their own candidate who was unquestionably old-school Conservative. The electorate gave us a kicking for it. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

[malcolm]

Agree with most of these but Mark Fulford is surely right about Bromley where the candidate and CCHQ were more responsible than Cameron.
For me the most important point is about trustworthiness which was why the EPP fiasco which although a small thing in itself was so disappointing.
Nevetheless compared to where we were in the late summer of 2005 things are going relatively well.Cameron can take a lot of credit for that.

[Richard]

"The logo looks younger, fresh and improves our attractivenes to younger voters. Many more gains than losses."

You seem to have a low opinion of younger voters. "Oooh, look at that pretty tree, let's vote Tory! I love the cool way it's so badly drawn."

"The local association picked their own candidate who was unquestionably old-school Conservative."

Who also happened to be pro-European integration. That may not be the reason that we got a kicking but I'm not sure if wearing a pinstripe suit is a sufficient explanation either.

[Scotty]

"How was it David Cameron's fault that Bromley and Chislehurst gave us a scare?"
Mark, I am wondering about that too. In fact how much involvement did CCHQ have with the campaign, and did it reflect the wishes of the local association?
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2006/06/bob_neill_wins_.html

[John Irvine]

Scotty

Isn't your HQ located in Edinburgh, rather a long way from Bromley?

Or is it just that you have a short memory.

[Mark Fulford]

Ah, the Midlothian Question strikes ConservativeHome.

[HF]

Mark Fulford stated "How was it David Cameron's fault that Bromley and Chislehurst gave us a scare? The local association picked their own candidate who was unquestionably old-school Conservative. The electorate gave us a kicking for it. There's a lesson in there somewhere."

Our campaign was quite clearly a niaive mess. CCHQ were involved in that and need to be held accountable. Yes 3 jobs Bob made mistakes but failures in by elections have been a feature of our record for many years.

These top 10 are lows in his first year, few of them are his personal failings. But he should be ensuring that someone owns responsibility for the mistakes to be tackled.

[Michael McGowan]

Malcolm, Mark, you're not suggesting are you that the late Eric Forth was a closet member of the Notting Hill set?

[Sean Fear]

CCHQ were intimately involved in the B & C campaign. On balance, I think Robert Neill was the right candidate, and that an outsider would probably have lost the seat.

My feeling is that both CCHQ and the local association were expecting an easy victory, and many of them were highly complacent.

On polling day, I knocked up a voter who identified himself to me as a member of the Executive Committee. He was rather annoyed to be disturbed - and it was on the tip of my tongue to ask him why he wasn't helping out. Nicholas Bennett has also commented on the complacency of some of those involved in the campaign.

[Scotty]

Thanks Sean,
IIRC there was a lot of nationwide media/online coverage of the individual candidates and campaign tactics as you would expect in a by election. You did not get a real sense of who was running the conservative campaign, with the Libdems you know that every thing is being managed by their excellent guru Lord Rennard.

[Londoner]

I agree that it is most surprising you did not include the pre-spin of the relative poverty speech - Toynbee imagery favoured over Churchill's. Apart from anything else, it gave the woman the chance to go on the airwaves for 48 hours upsetting Conservatives and giving our opponents a good laugh at our discomfort. Possibly ConHome feels unable to acknowledge this was a mistake because your editorial line was indulgent - but I challenge the Editor to find many/any threads where the comment was more hostile.

For me, saying an 80% elected Upper House would be better than the 50% elected one proposed by Labour was also a low moment. It comes to something when the Labour Party threatens less destruction to a successful part of our balanced constitution than us. But I accept that not many people will have noticed and therefore no great harm will have been done provided wiser counsels can be brought to prevail in due course.

[TaxCutter]

I've got the failure to make the case for taxcuts, the inability to further dent Labour's lead, no reorganisation of the party's campaigning structure, and the silence of the Shadow Cabinet as the key troughs.

[anon]

Might I suggest the failure to rule out state funding of political parties

[Torygirl]

Stop moaning and sit tight everyone. PLEASE.

[Gunther]

Cameron is a disaster waiting to happen - at the General Election.

[Gareth]

The Bromley & Chiselhurst by-election really wasn't about disenchantment with Cameron. It was about (another) highly cynical and highly successful Liberal smear campaign and (another) highly amateur by-election campaign by us.

[Josh]

I rather like the tree, though I understand the negative connotations behind the exercise.

I think the Toynbee show was a disaster. The very idea that that woman could even be in the same league as Churchill is a joke. The last thing we needed to do is give her an even higher opinion of herself.

And I'm sure the Lefties had as much of a great time watching us wretch as we had when Blair invited Thatcher round for tea.

[HF]

Regarding B&C could Bob Neil be interviewed by Con Home on what went wrong?

No harm in explaining the mistakes, many Associations, candidates and CCHQ could learn from it.

Also unlike elements of Paul Offer's statement, giving insight into the mistakes would not harm us elsewhere. It could have the opposite effect.

There seems to me to be a deafening silence on B&C. It is as if the Association and CCHQ have agreed to bury any investigation.

[Mark Fulford]

I am now reminded that the ten peaks did not include outwitting Labour's “100 day onslaught”. I recall many posts from the leadership contest (from the Usual Suspects) predicting that David Cameron would be flattened because he hadn’t got the grit or experience.

[malcolm]

Yes I remember those remarks Mark.The only thing that seemed to have changed are the 'usual suspects' themselves.A few have been banned but there a number of others who appear to have simply stopped blogging such as James Hellyer. We used to have some good arguments then,sadly much of the criticism now seems a bit mindless.
I have to say 'though that Cameron has acquitted himself better in debate than I expected,nor did I expect the Labour or Lib-Dem attacks to be so lame.

[Jorgen]

nor did I expect the Labour or Lib-Dem attacks to be so lame.

They haven't really started yet. It is better for them to wait until closer to the election.

[Michael McGowan]

On the Toynbee episode, I thought this was a bit of a storm in a teacup from the outset. Greg Clark trying to shock and not really managing because he didn't really agree with her anyway. And it wasn't exactly bad PR for the Tories to have her bloated ego and toxic personality paraded on our TV screens.

[Scotty]

"They haven't really started yet. It is better for them to wait until closer to the election."
NuLabour very successfully attacked and undermined Hague, IDS and Howard in the first few weeks and months of their leaderships.
They have thrown everything at David Cameron over the last year in an attempt to neutralise his appeal. They devoted their PPB's during the local elections in May to the "Dave the chameleon" campaign.

[Colin]

THE trough has got to be Cameron's appearance on the Jonathan Ross Show. Sheer dross.

Some seriously misjudged comments regarding business, UKIP, tax, EU, and appearances and all in the first year.

Hopefully his advisers will have learnt from the Ross experience otherwise we could see him on Big Brother. Well, the same reasoning for voter exposure could apply.

[Mark Fulford]

Sheer dross.

For any politician, 15 light-hearted minutes on prime time is not dross. It's a gift.

Some Conservatives would have tuned into the Jonathan Ross Show (never usually watch him, he's so vulgar) hoping to be appalled at Cameron (ghastly man, all style, no substance). Ross was vulgar and Cameron shone in the media. Naturally they hated it.

[Josh]

I can't understand all the hostility to Cammie on Wossie. I thought it was a good performance.

[Jorgen]

Good points, scotty. But I don't think Brown has really started yet. Anyway, we can expect a very hard fought campaign at the next election.

[Colin]

"For any politician, 15 light-hearted minutes on prime time is not dross. It's a gift".

Mark, that may be the case if one is George Galloway, Dave is not (tg).

However, 15 minutes of 'light hearted' - I don't think so. The appalling discussion regarding sexual comment and Margaret Thatcher, the near miss of the 'high five' on drugs agreement, were the type of areas that any responsible advisers would have advised Cameron not to run the risk by going on the show.

No, Dave did not do well. Few would. he looked distinctly ill at ease too often.

[Larry Green]

Cameron looked like a total prat on the Jonathan Ross show.

I supposed he hoped to look "cool". In the event the joke was on him.

Cameron's belief (shared by his sycophants) that he is at the cutting edge of trendiness with his open-necked shirts etc is so utterly laughable it is truly pathetic.

[Andy Stidwill]

"A rich pretty boy who pretends to give a damn but doesn't really" - Martin Amis on Dave.

[matt wright]

Oh dear the posts descending to personal attacks again and negative whingeing. Always the same culprits. I think a fair assessment is as follows: Cameron has got us consistently ahead in the polls. he has mainly succeeded in widening our appeal and removing some of the negatives. More floating voters are now listening to us rather than reeling away in horror. However we have 2 things we have to watch. Firstly we need to be cautious of spin and secondly we need to build a soild central message about what modern Conservatives stand for. The foundations of that are in social responsibility, as DC has indicated, but this needs illustrating in practical terms and in such a way that we present the positive future for our nation.

Matt

[Colin]

Cameron's gaff's and moves are taking their toll.

"Toby Horton, William Hague’s former constituency chairman has resigned from the Conservative Party and joined the UKIP.

Joined the Conservatives 40 years ago and fought a number of elections, taking on Tony Blair in Sedgefield in 1983. He was constituency chairman to William Hague, when he was in the Cabinet and the party’s leader.
But the Tory party’s recent embrace of the left-wing columnist Polly Toynbee has stretched Toby Horton’s loyalty beyond breaking point.

Other defections include a local party chairman and another former parliamentary candidate."

If recent polls are to be believed Conservative membership, originally increasing following DC election, is begining to drop. Be interesting to hear what happens as membership's become due for renewal in 2007.

The waves may become more telling than the troughs, from which they no doubt start.

[Yet Another Anon]

Toby Horton, William Hague’s former constituency chairman has resigned from the Conservative Party and joined the UKIP.
The biggest short term breakthrough for UKIP will be if any MP's defect, especially if they intend defending their seat on a UKIP platform - that would see UKIP making the breakthrough.

[towcestarian]

Michael McGowan said:
"On the Toynbee episode, I thought this was a bit of a storm in a teacup from the outset. "

That particular teacup of turbulence was the tipping point for me to become a stay-at home-tory. It will now take a huge amount of back-tracking (which won't happen) to get me back on board. The only reason it wasn't more damaging is that most grass-roots tories have no idea who she is and what she stands for.

[Richard Carey]

Storm in a teacup is spot on - and a fabricated one at that. It was almost as if a few commenters and others were simply looking for reasons to be outraged (perish the thought).

I'm not sure what you think Greg Clark did - and I certainly don't know what you think DC did in your view of the world.

Let's correct the facts - we cited a piece of imagery that had been used by Toynbee, an image of society as a caravan moving through a desert, where she wondered what happened if those at the rear were left too far behind.

We didn't accept socialist prescriptions, we just acknowledged that this was a problem. The Conservative solutions lie in extending a hand down to help people off the net of welfare and on to the ladder of opportunity - probably not something government can do on its own. The net and ladder model as it is currently constituted is not helping many as it should, and we need to look at what more we can do.

If that aspiration is so heinous as to lose your vote, then I'm truly sorry, but I don't see it.

[towcestarian]

Richard
Of course it wasn't just the caravan analogy that was the problem, although it was pretty bad. It was the whole way that it was handled; the gloating in the Guardian and the sight of Toynbee in full smugness mode on Newsnight felt like being kicked in the gonads. The fact that DC the the Conservateve Party saw fit not to come up with any sort of rebuttal said it all. In fact, it looked like they were rather enjoying it.

If he seriouly wants to help the disadvantaged, why doesn't DC support the reintroduction of Grammar Schools? Why doesn't he back Frank Field's ideas for time limits on welfare payments (introduced by Clinton and working very effectively in the USA)?

Like I said, this was a tipping point. Under DC, the Conservatives have hardly uttered a single word that has had the slightest resonance for me. At some point you have to accept that the party has moved to a position that you don't and won't support. This was that point.