Year two of Project Cameron needs more breadth

Within David Cameron's interview for this morning's Daily Telegraph there are welcome hints of more emphasis on the teaching of British history, greater independence for schools and support for marriage.  Activists will also like the Conservative leader's clear renunciation of Polly Toynbee's politics:

"We are not saying adopt Polly Toynbee's policy. She is a statist, she is a Gordon Brownist."

But David Cameron's overall message to the Tory grassroots is that he's determined to press ahead with his modernisation agenda.  These words are indicative:

"I am very clear about the direction in which we are going. The Conservative Party needs to get into the centre ground on the issues on which people talking about. It is no good having a manifesto devoted to immigration and Europe if people are interested in health and education."

Does Mr Cameron really believe that voters are not interested in immigration?  Few Conservatives object to the party talking about schools and hospitals.  Nearly every Conservative activist I know has reported that recent NHS Action Days have been hugely successful.  The grassroots will be delighted at a greater emphasis on the teaching of British history.  If Mr Cameron had spent his first year on these bread and butter issues activists would not be as restless as they are becoming.  Instead the emphasis on the environment has been almost messianic but has offered no answers to key questions about the failure of the Kyoto approach or the marginal role that Britain can play in arresting global warming.

The problem with the first year of Project Cameron has been a consistent lack of balance:

• Centre-right Tories who supported David Cameron in the leadership contest knew that there was going to be modernisation but they understood that it would not be at the expense of traditional fare.  They were told, for example, that in the first few weeks of the Cameron leadership there would be a modernising drive for more women candidates but there would also be exit from the EPP.  The first has been delivered - the second has not.
• The search for a representative pool of candidates has itself been flawed - even superficial.  There has been a search for women and ethnic minority candidates but no deeper search for candidates from the north or from outside the law, politics and the City.  Nothing has been done to address the huge costs of becoming a Conservative candidate.
• The Tories may be progressing healthily in the south but in northern England there is little good news.  'Waitrose voter' has been wooed assiduously but the Tories are offering little hope to the 'Morrisons voter' who is overburdened by Labour's taxes and failed by inadequate policing. 
• The party is also becalmed in Scotland and Wales where there are crucial Parliamentary/ Assembly elections next May.

There is still time to put all of this right but the Tory leadership will be making a serious mistake if it thinks the grumblings of the grassroots should be ignored.  65% of grassroots members told ConservativeHome in September that the party's poll lead was too modest given the troubles of the Government.  They - rooted in real communities - appear to better understand that only a broader and more authentic Conservatism will deliver the victory that Mr Cameron's personal skills are so well-suited to deliver.

Comments

[michael mcgough]

How long until 'back me or we will lose again'
becomes 'back me or sack me?'

[JT]

Cameron fails completely to address the following inconsistencies in his own message:

1. He cites a serious problem whereby city academies are obliged to charge VAT when they "open their doors to the community"

2. VAT is an EU tax

3. He refuses to talk about 'Europe' but would rather talk about "education", failing to see how they are connected in the instance he refers to

4. He wishes people to take more responsibility for their problems, rather than the State

5. He refuses to allow people to claim back from the State part of the money that they have paid in tax, so that they may combine that money with some of their residual income to purchase private healthcare where the State has failed them.

Such glaring inconsistencies show to me that he does not have the intellectual rigour to allow him to do the job competently.

[JT]

p.s. it all shows the abysmal standard of interviewing at the Daily Telegraph that Cameron should be able to get away with those inconsistencies without being challenged.

Noy only that, in the podcast on the Telegraph website, the person interviewing the interviewer (!) doesn't pick up on it.

How rubbish is the Telegraph that I could spot two logical inconsistencies in what Cameron had to say, yet full time journos couldn't do it? Is that why Cameron chose to give the interview to them? Because he knew that they're not really on the ball?

[Lindsay Jenkins]

JT is spot on. Cameron lacks all credibility by ignoring the EU, which gives us two thirds of our laws. VAT and our borders are just two of the key areas that are outside our control and Cameron pretends they are within it.

Cameron is playing let's pretend politics and the voters are not stupid.

We could talk about leaving the EU. Now that would be a vote winner.

[Sean Fear]

"Back me or we will lose again" sounds rather like "unite or die."

[JT]

Tim, perhaps unwittingly, points to what is arguably a third logical inconsistency in Cameron's interview.

How can the state on the one hand say that it will promote the teaching of British history in state schools, and at the same time seek to give them greater independence?

If your retort to that is to say that the State should continue to exert pressure over the content of education, rather than the legal/economic framewhich in which schools operate, how is that squared with Cameron's comments that "The Conservative Party has got to stop being obsessed by structure in education."

Is Cameron seeking more control over state schooling, or less? Should the State direct more of the content of the curriculum or less? Should it allow greater operational and structural freedom, or less? I can get no coherent message about what Cameron wants from this interview.

[Annabel Herriott]

Sean, you are right. Its our old design fault alive and kicking. The individual versus the collective. Its plagued us all our days. There has to be another way for the collective to stay united with the individual while expressing their opinions. Discussion among ourselves while excluding trouble making trolls, UKIP, Nulab and limp dum posters would help.

[TomTom]

but the Tories are offering little hope to the 'Morrisons voter'

What is a Morrison's Voter ? I find this a peculiar designation, but let me try and work this out - it is a voter who shops at one of the best supermarket chains in Britain; built by Ken Morrison himself from two market stalls; and which buys from local producers eg Seabrokks Crisps because he went to school with the chipshop owner who built Seabrooks Crisps which is located not far from Morrison's former HQ on Thornton Road.

It buys Longley Farm yoghurts from Holmfirth. It owns it own pork factory and abattoir.

It has no loyalty cards except for petrol. It operates a fresh cheese counter which cuts cheese rather than selling it pre-pack. It has one of the very best selection of cheeses and bacon.

It has superb wine departments and regularly wins awards.

It is rated in The Grocer as No1 for stock levels with Tesco rated worst. Morrisons rarely has empty shelves, and that is confirmed when you speak to reps you see doing SKU checks.

We are lucky to have such dominance from Morrisons in this area that I can choose from Tesco or Sainsbury or Waitrose, but much prefer Morrisons.

Oh and if you care to visit a Morrisons car park and look at auto marques you will see enough leased Mercedes, Porsches, Range Rovers, BMWs, Jaguars (these cars are always leased) and people with enough money to own their own vehicles such as Rolls-Royces, Saabs, VW, Skoda, Lexus.

If only the Conservative Party could be like Morrisons - open to all, built up to a major group by the current Chairman, highly competitive, very well stocked, excellent reputation, lots of outlets, and no gimmicks, but an outstanding reputation for certain product lines such as fresh cheese and bacon, in-store butchers, great wine section; and personal responses from Ken Morrison to letters.

If only the Conservative Party was run by men of the calibre of entepreneurs like Ken Morrison !

[Alex R]

i am fed up with hearing osborne attack gordon brown for introducing high taxes, when he has said that he won't cut them.

at the present rate, I will not be able to vote conservative at the next election (i live in croydon central - where we won by 80 votes at the last election - so I am one of the lucky few that has a vote that counts).

[Yet Another Anon]

How long until 'back me or we will lose again'
becomes 'back me or sack me?'
After the Conservatives have inched forward at the next General Election and probably Edward Leigh challenges him for the leadership.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Alex R -

If your action results is us having another labour government then you, and anyone like you, will have my utter contempt. I've had enough of this crowd, anyone who would allow it to continue should have it on their consciences forever. When you are in line to get your ID card imagine us and be very, very ashamed.

[JT]

Tim Worstall has produced a priceless parody of DC's interview here.

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

HAPPY ANIVERSARY DAVID

Lets start with opinion polls. In October last year the monthly poll of polls had Labour on 39%, the Conservatives on 31% and those wishy-washy Lib Dem geeks on 20%. Today Labour are down 7 points at 32%, the Conservatives are up 6 points at 37% and the Lib Dems on 19%. (Notice the Difference) What must be much more worrying for Labour is the news that 59% of people polled for the Daily Politics said recently that they thought that David Cameron can beat Labour at the next election and that David Cameron still leads Gordon Brown in the personal ratings 41% to 35% per cent. So I think its very fair to say that this in itself has been a very good start.

Next its party policy. I think its a bit early to start judging DC on this because as we all know he has already set up task groups that are due to report in the new year looking at Competitiveness, Quality of Life Challenge, Public Services, Security, Social Justice,and Globalisation and Global Poverty.

Finally, and I believe just as importantly we have Campaigning. If ever a Government needed bringing to account it was Tony Blair's crony-ridden champagne socialists. As a fully pledged supporter of the Notting Hill Set I believe that under David Cameron campaigning really has become our strength. Be it campaigning against transparency in Government spending, fighting NHS cutbacks or fighting for what is best for OUR environment - this is where David Cameron has took the fight to Labour.

Therefore in conclusion my message to David Cameron and the new Modern and Compassionate Conservative Party is well done, keep up the good work up and don't let tossers get you down!

[Andrew Woodman]

Pleasing to see my Morrisons voter phrase being used. Morrisons voter to me, is down to earth Northerner who works hard and recognises value. They don't have time for the Polly Toynbees but want effective local policing, and an Education and Health system which does what it says on the tin. They can be won over, but only when we have actual policy rather than simply direction.

[Jorgen]

If ever a Government needed bringing to account it was Tony Blair's crony-ridden champagne socialists.

Yep, in with the new "conservative" champagne socialists.

[Yet Another Anon]

In October last year the monthly poll of polls had Labour on 39%, the Conservatives on 31% and those wishy-washy Lib Dem geeks on 20%. Today Labour are down 7 points at 32%, the Conservatives are up 6 points at 37% and the Lib Dems on 19%. (Notice the Difference)
It's not at all unusual, it's normal especially when one party has been in government a long time for it to begin to get into difficulties the year after the election - usually after an election victory opinion polls show a winning party as increasing it's upport up until the party conferences and usually a bit beyond, opinion polls exaggerate shifts in support anyway usually - in the 1980's and 1990's it was fashionable to pose as a Labour voter and so in many opinion polls the Conservatives were well under-reported and Labour over-reported, even in 1997 there were people who having thought they were going to vote Labour gave in to doubts and decided to stick with the Status Quo, from about 2003 with the War in Iraq this changed with labour no longer seen as being trendy and if anything up until October 2005 the polls were probably about right mostly, people are very unsure of David cameron who is a relative unknown, Gordon Brown on the other hand has been almost as powerful and influential in the government over nearly 10 years as Tony Blair - the economic policy is Gordon Brown's and so is much of the social policy, while he has had little involvement in foreign policy he has made it clear that he will build on existing security policy and if anything intensify much of the government's other policies - to some extent he is pitched on a continuity agenda.

[Jorgen]

Pardon me: somehow the words "crony-ridden" fell out of the sentence

[Yet Another Anon]

is the news that 59% of people polled for the Daily Politics said recently that they thought that David Cameron can beat Labour at the next election
That doesn't mean that they want him to though neccessarily, many will think that and be worried about a David Cameron government just as people will think that Gordon Brown will win and be worried about a government lead by Gordon Brown - the General Public mostly are not expert on forecasting the future including econometrics, what the finding is is an average opinion of what will or might happen and is no more valid than any one individual opinion which might well be a well informed opinion of what is going to happen.

[Scotty]

"Back me or we will lose again" sounds rather like "unite or die."
I have got to agree with Sean Fear on this and it neatly sums up why the conservative party has done so badly in elections for so long.
We have spent so much time fighting among ourselves and gearing our policies and manifesto's to trying to appease our own members that we have lost touch with the electorate.
Looking at the Labour and Libdem election fighting machines the difference has been at times stark.
To actually hear some poster's advocating that the party actually split, that it would be better to lose the next GE or that Gordon Brown would be better choice than David Cameron is really depressing.
Having read Tim's observations about what David Cameron's should be doing I was struck by this statement.
"There is still time to put all of this right but the Tory leadership will be making a serious mistake if it thinks the grumblings of the grassroots should be ignored."
So the last year has been a mistake and we should now concentrate yet again on the grass roots!
As someone who lives outside the Southern England bubble I find that statement just so depressing its is also the main reason why,
"The party is also becalmed in Scotland and Wales where there are crucial Parliamentary/ Assembly elections next May."
Both Labour and the Libdems can claim support right across the country, but then they understand what makes the Highlands in Scotland resonate with the area's throughout England. The conservative party fought the last GE on dog whistle issues that appealed to conservatives in the South, and the results reflected that. David Cameron is doing more to actual engage with the electorate right across the UK than any other leader in recent times.
Labour and the Libdems have thrown everything in their armoury at David Cameron over the last year and now they hope that the conservative party will do what they failed to achieve. Gordon Brown will be the next PM, but thanks to our shadow cabinet he is not looking like the mythical formidable political beast he once was. The strategy to undermine him rather than concentrate on an already tired and discredited Tony Blair has got to be the biggest success of David Cameron's first year. More please.

[Alex R]

cardinal

the tories do not have an automatic right to my vote. they have to earn it. they have done nothing to earn it. i do not believe that i should vote for a party whose policies i increasingly disagree with.

[Ted]

Scotty - thank you (saved me typing!)
Between 1992 & 1997 this party was reduced to its core, we lost our broad church, we were left with less than 200 MPs returned only in our safest seats, our membership aged. I'd love a tax cutting, radical Conservative Party but if we continued the way we were I'll never see one.

I would also like a party that cared about delivering a health service that was competently run and delivered to the many and didn't get distracted by the few (like me) with private health. Like Mrs Thatcher I want to see an education system that delivered to the vast majority not only the clever few selected by the State. I want a healthy environment, strong defence, personal liberty and strong law enforcement. I do not want to see an underclass. Cameron might not have the answers I'd prefer but he has better ones that Brown, Reid etc.

I believe a victory by Conservatives will change the terms of discourse and that a new generation of radical progressive Conservatives building on Hayek, Friedman etc will be freed to start delivering a 21st Century conservative answer. It's nearly 15 years since a Conservative Government has been elected, Cameron (and Willets et al) are our best hope we will see another one. Maybe not a majority in 2009 (largest party perhaps) but definitely by 2012.

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

Ted - Agreed.

Cameron is our best hope by far!

What I think we need at some point in the next few weeks is some kind of strategy summit on how to beat UKIP because the East Lindset District Council By Election Result in St Clements Ward last Thursday shows that despite winning the argument (the Right took nearly 60% of the vote) UKIP are still costing us seats.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Alex R -

So if you don't vote conservative and let labour back in would you be happy to have a government you agree even less with?

If you do agree with them however, vote for them instead. There is a site called labourhome who would be happy to have your custom.

[Scotty]

"UKIP are still costing us seats." You are correct about UKIP costing us seats in some marginal's, but wrong to try and concentrate on them. If you go after Labour/Libdem votes in the same area you will offset those losses and increase your vote in other area's of the country.
I was remembering an election back in the 80's when I and a group of other students got together to vote at the GE. Most of us were student nurses and everyone voted for Mrs T.
Now I am the only conservative voter left, the rest all switched to Blair/Kennedy in the 90's. None of these people have become active in either the Labour or Libdems but would not consider voting tory.
I think that Blair and Kennedy had that X factor that we have not had since Mrs T. It is not a superficial "reality/PR" con that some people dismiss as a sad reflection of today's voters. People like strong leaders of united parties who they can trust to try and do the best for everyone. David Cameron has that X factor, but does the party have the ability to unite and turn into a confident election winning machine thereby earning the trust of the electorate.
We focus too much on David Cameron's progress good or bad and not enough on our own contribution.

[Yet Another Anon]

I think that Blair and Kennedy had that X factor that we have not had since Mrs T. It is not a superficial "reality/PR" con that some people dismiss as a sad reflection of today's voters.
Under Charles Kennedy though in 2001 the total number of Liberal Democrat voters actually fell and in 2005 with the assistance of the public mostly being against the war in Iraq the total number of Liberal Democrat votes still only went up in total numbers to where it was in 1992, in percentage terms of those turning out to vote it was still slightly below their 1987 performance. The recent peak of the Liberal Democrats in terms of support has been below that for the Alliance in the 1980's and only about the same as that in the mid-1970's for the Liberals.

[Scotty]

"the total number of Liberal Democrat voters actually fell and in 2005" Not a correct comparison. The Libdems over the last few years have punched above their weight because they targeted their resources. That is why they have 60 + MP's on the back of a slight drop in total votes cast for them.
Charles Kennedy was very much an asset when visiting their target seats.
All credit to a party which has very successfully punched above it's weight in recent years, and much of that credit must go also to their formidable election fighting machine.