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.

[ToMtom]

What about Peter Oborne's article in the Mail today ?

Peter Oborne

Dave's big mistake was to ape Blair
10:59am 2nd December 2006

[Yet Another Anon]

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.
They have more seats because their vote is more focused in certain areas now, the total number of people who voted Liberal Democrat in 1992 was 5,999,384, in 1997 - 5,242,947, in 2001 - 4,814,321 and in 2005 - 5,981,874 (a whisker lower than the total number of votes they got in 1992 - 22% of the vote because of lower turnout), in 1983 the Alliance got 7,780,949 (25.4% of the vote) and in 1987 7,341,651 (22.6% of the vote).

In February 1974 the Liberal Party got 6,059,519 votes (19.3% of the vote) and in October 1974 5,346,704 (18.3% of the vote) on what were then far lower electorates. The rhetoric on it is far more impressive than the actual figures which if anything indicate that the Liberal Democrats are more vulnerable to a surge in turnout among Labour and Conservative voters than the Alliance were in the 1980's and the Liberals were in the mid 1970's.

[Yet Another Anon]

The big surge forward in terms of seats was under Paddy Ashdown in 1997 when they went from having had 22 seats in 1992 to 46 seats in 1997 on what was their lowest vote on any measure since 1979; in 2001 and 2005 they failed to make the same progress as before in terms of seats.

[John Moss]

What pains me about this is the perpetuation of the myth of the "centre ground" being about not having radical policies. Thatcher fought three elections on "centre ground" issues but in each case with radical policies to address them.

We, in turn, fought on the central issue of the economy and how Labour's tax plans would wreck a fragile recovery. That was 1992 and we won.

Fought a wholly negative campaign on the same theme in 1997, when people had already "banked" the recovery and wanted somebody to address their concerns about health and education, which we ignored. We lost badly.

In 2001 we fought on issues completely unimportant to just about everybody. We lost badly again.

Between 2001 and 2003, we started to talk about health, education, social justice etc, but then reverted to crime and immigration under Howard. We lost badly again.

Cameron is right to say we fought the last election on the wrong platform, but he fails to acknowledge that behind the wild-eyed scare tactic advertising, there were some very sensible policies on health and education, but that we never bothered to campaign on them because the early polling and focus groups didn't like them.

Talk about the art of followship!

The work has been done, the policies are there, we just need a leader who is prepared to lead on education vouchers, independence for schools and universities, a switch to social insurance based healthcare and real attention to poverty in housing and welfare reform of the like even Frank Field might have balked at.

Unfortunately, he's the Shadow Home Secretary.

[Annabel Herriott]

Ted, you are so right there! We will also have a tail wind by then also, ie by the end of 2008. Tim M. would be very cross with me if I dared to expand this argument, but trust your instincts. You and I will be proved right.

[steve]

Cameron has misjudged the last ten years, yes it was pointless sounding too right wing during the New Labour honeymoon years when Blair could do no wrong in the eyes of the majority.
Now that the true scale of the disaster that Labour have created has been revealed to all but the most naive and the electorate swings to the right in a desparate search for solutions to the problems of crime and uncontrolled immigration, Cameron decides to swing left into a cul de sac where he cannot be distinguished from the lib/labs.
There is everything to be gained from promoting support for things such as the NHS as most depend on it, but to excuse vicious crime as nothing more than a reaction to poverty is a grave mistake. It is painful to observe this spectacle of the Tories who I have supported for 35 years saying "may be there is something in what the left have been saying" when they could be saying "trust us with the future, because we have been right all along".

[Richard]

I think Cameron has made a mistake with the tone of this. It just gives the impression that the party is divided and rebellious. Yes, there might be rumblings of discontent from some quarters but it's not as bad as he makes it out to be.

[Jorgen]

I have with interest read all the above plausible reasons for why we have lost ever since 1997. The real reason we lost was because of Tony Blair's popularity; he was simply too popular to beat. I don't believe we lost because of our policies; our policies have been critizised by the media while Mrs Thatcher was at the wheel, but we still managed to convince the electorate that they were sane.

Is that why DC apes Blair (as Oborne says) instead of doing the job he was hired to do: selling Conservative policies?

[Scotty]

"Cameron decides to swing left into a cul de sac where he cannot be distinguished from the lib/labs."
Absolutely wrong, he is trying to kick start a car which has been left neglected and broken down in a "cul de sac" in one area of England.
The libdems have punched above their weight in electoral terms because they target a seat, win it, bed down and then move on.
They expect to lose support in some of their seats in the South but hope to balance that with a stronger showing in other area's.
The libdems kept increasing their tally of MP's which flatter their national vote share, yet the conservatives continue to languish at under 200 MP's despite an increase in their vote share. WHY, because they keep trying to appeal to the very constituencies which would vote conservative if they put up a donkey with a blue rosette!
Tony Blair and Mrs Thatcher did not win 3 consecutive GE's by appealing to their core vote in Glasgow or Henley on Thames, they did it by appealing to the electorate across the UK.
"It is painful to observe this spectacle of the Tories who I have supported for 35 years saying "may be there is something in what the left have been saying" when they could be saying "trust us with the future, because we have been right all along".
No, the electorate is ALWAYS correct and it is that kind of arrogance and out of touch thinking that will see the demise of Labour at the polls just as it did the previous conservative government.
Now are we going to be in a position to pick up the keys to No10 or are we going to sit there and watch Labour and the Libdems divide the spoils of government?

[Alex R]

cardinal,

a vote for cameron would be seen as an endorsement of his policy and the platform he is standing on. surely it is immoral to vote for something i don't believe in.

i want a platform of lower taxes, less government, nhs and education vouchers, a foreign policy that recognises that america is our friend, tough on crime and one that is pro business.

if i vote for cameron, there will be zero chance of me getting any of this. he will instead continue to serve up more of the same pap. is that not true?

[Sean Fear]

"WHY, because they keep trying to appeal to the very constituencies which would vote conservative if they put up a donkey with a blue rosette!"

There are few such constituencies these days. The Conservative Party needs to work hard even to keep the supporters it has.

What we have to do in order to win is keep the 33% who voted for us in 2005, and get another 6-7% from people who voted Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, or who didn't vote at all.

My principal criticism of the Cameron project is that it seems to be intended to alienate a good proportion of the 33%, in the hope of winning over new voters.

[Tam Large]

The way Cameron is going we will definitely get a Labour government at the next election: a red one led by Gordon Brown; or a blue one led by Dave. I don't want either...

[Matt Davis]

Perhaps all those wholly convinced by Cameron's back me or lose the next election bluster might consider the hard numbers analysis on www.politicalbetting.com today.Makes interesting reading for all those who think that we are going to win by continuing to ape New Labour or who have failed to convert the polling figues into actual electoral ones.

[Jon White]

TomTom's endorsement of Morrison's is absolutely spot on. As a former National Account Manager who has dealt with all of the big Grocers in the UK, I can also say that whilst very tough to negotiate with, Morrison's 'play fair', unlike some of their competitors.

I would love to see the party organised in the way Sir Ken runs his company. However, didn't we have a bright hope in a former CEO of a major supermarket chain (Asda) in the House as a Tory MP? A certain Mr. Archie Norman. Whatever happened to him?

[jorgen]

The way Cameron is going we will definitely get a Labour government at the next election: a red one led by Gordon Brown; or a blue one led by Dave. I don't want either...

That is how I see it too.

Worse still: according to The Guardian, Hilton voted for the Greens in 1997!!! If this is true, the Blue Labour may actually be redder than the Red Labour party.

[Scotty]

"My principal criticism of the Cameron project is that it seems to be intended to alienate a good proportion of the 33%, in the hope of winning over new voters."
When did we stop wanting to win elections?

I agree totally with David Cameron when he says
""I suppose you could spend the next few years as leader of the Conservative Party just telling people what they wanted to hear and jolly them along and everyone would be happy — and then you would lose another election. Well, I don't see the point of that,"
Sean, a party that does not even have the confidence to risk climbing out of a core vote box of 30-33% does not deserve the keys to No10. The conservative party will not inspire confidence, trust or respect if it does not make a serious pitch to the wider electorate.

[steve]

Scotty ignores the main thrust of my argument, which is that the Cameron strategy assumes that voters outside the core Tory vote who are up for grabs are still of the liberal mindset which disapproved of tory policy up until recently.
My opinion as previously stated is that there has been a sea change in opinion in the last year or so and that many who were fooled by left wing politics are now not only sick of it, but are also scared of crime etc. and are now scouring the horizon for a party strong and trustworthy with traditional tough right wing policies. Just at this moment the Conservative party throws away this traditional mantra and those voters are left with nowhere to go except extreme parties.

[Sandbagger]

Well interesting as it might seem,there is a clear choice before the electorate. It is a pink on led by Dave Cameron or a red one led by Gordon Brown. It is however,a poor choice. If however there was a true blue party,a Real Conservative Party standing then there would be only 1 favourite and that would be the aforementioned True Blue Tory Party .When are those people going to listen to the people.They are crying out for a Tory Party with real ideals.
Forget all this rubbish about how many elections we have lost. Oppositions do not win elections,Governments lose them!Let us take the fight to them and stop all this so called Liberal Conservative nonsense.

[Tapestry]

Cameron's strategy is a media strategy.

The media objects to a politician talking about immigration or Europe. Portillo for example writes in the ST over and over that the Party must fight on the middle ground and only mention the main issues that concern the public - health and education.

Whether the public cares about immigration or not (of course it does) the media will attack any politician who campaigns on it.

Europe meanwhile only has to silence opposition to become a fact of life.

The BBC backs Europe. Murdoch backs Europe. The Mail backs Brown who backs Europe. The guardian/observer back europe. There is little media left after that.

Cameron is known not to be euro-enthusiastic which is why he gets slammed in the murdoch press. If he opened up on Brussels with all Tory guns blazing, he would be shot down in flames as was Thatcher, IDS before him.

He has to tread warily around the media. Not to mention Ken Clarke and William Hague, who is as keen on the EU as anyone, the charming old fool.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Alex R -

I never understand someone who would cut off their nose to spite their face. I voted Conservative for the last two elections even though I had reservations about the direction that the party was taking. Why can't you next time?

Why did I continue to vote this way? Because the alternative was (as has proved to be) worse. If you want to feel virtuous whilst making things worse for us then expect to be treated with contempt.

[Sean Fear]

Scotty, my point is that we can't take the 30-33% for granted, let alone alienate them.

In fact, I can think of no successful political party that has behaved towards its core supporters as the Conservative Party leadership has behaved towards its core supporters over the past 12 months.

[malcolm]

I didn't like the tone of Camerons interview very much.Instead of saying 'tough' to the members he should be looking at every which way to carry them along with his reforms and ideas.The politics of 'and' does seem to me to be the sensible way to approach it. I hope the second year of his leadership will be much more balanced to traditional tory concerns.
Having said that, there are some Conservatives on this site who seem to yearn for a party that we've never been nor ever will be.I can only urge these people to accept the reality of what we are.Their only alternative does seem to me to emigrate if they can find a country who'se views reflect their own.

[Josh]

"In fact, I can think of no successful political party that has behaved towards its core supporters as the Conservative Party leadership has behaved towards its core supporters over the past 12 months."

Well there was the Labour party between 1993.

Face it, we're all the Labour back benchers of the right. Left behind in our ideological conviction as the party's leadership compromises in the centre ground.

But look on the bright side, I think the total abandonment of everything socialists stood for, common ownership (ie tyrannical control of the economy), protectionism, oppressive trade union empowerment, and all the rest, in favour of the neo-liberal economic orthodoxy was a bigger shock for the left of Labour than the move to supporting tax 'n' spend public services within the neo-liberal economic framework is for us.

[Josh]

I think the best way Cameron can do an attack on the centre from right would to hold El Gordo to account for his tax credit system, which creates effective 80% marginal tax rates on low income earners trying to move up in the world.

It would be brilliant. Lower tax on low earnings, a right wing thing, would help the poor to move out of poverty, a left wing thing.

[Scotty]

"In fact, I can think of no successful political party that has behaved towards its core supporters as the Conservative Party leadership has behaved towards its core supporters over the past 12 months."
What!
Trying being a conservative politician or party activist in Scotland when the poll tax arrived, John Major and various rebels during 92-97, IDS being removed and replaced without the consent of the membership in such a brutal way, I could go!
The Labour governments behaviour towards its core voter's is too numerous to mention and the fact that its majority has been so large that its backbencher's have comfortable enjoyed the luxury of rebelling more than any other government party that I remember.
Back when the Iraq war was voted on, just check the number of Labour rebels and compare the figure with the amount of sitting tory MP's at the time.
David Cameron is not the problem it is the conservative membership which has to make a decision about whether it puts electoral success with a requisite compromise on some of their core values, or we remain a rump core vote with limited success outside pockets of England.
I will make a prediction, a button down the hatches core vote strategy will deliver a core vote result and a Lab/libdem coalition.
But a strategy which gives the party a sniff of 40% or more and a possible largest party/outright victory will not have the very activists and members who stuck it out during 97' and beyond sitting on their hands at home.

[steve]

"I will make a prediction, a button down the hatches core vote strategy will deliver a core vote result and a Lab/libdem coalition."

This statement makes it sound as if the world of traditional Tory voters is black and white without any shades of grey. Of course most would be willing to compromise on many core values to broaden the appeal of the party but not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
When David Cameron makes excuses for criminal behaviour it is as likely to turn off a Labour or Liberal voter as a Tory one. Surely he should be saying soothing things to reassure any law abiding citizen in this country if he wishes them to vote for them.

[Josh]

And continuing on the New Lab/New Con analogy, when New Labour came to power, they were more right wing than the Tories (independence for the Bank of England, privitisation of ATC, etc). It was only as they became entrenched that they drifted to the left with escalating taxation of government intrusion.

So, while Cameron may come in all leftie, eventually he'll drift back to good old conservatism.

[matt wright]

Tim, I don't think we are becalmed in Wales and I am less pessimistic about the differences between north and south. I know that the reception on the doors and in surveys in North Wales is excellent and in a recent by-election test in Prestatyn we did very well. I think that Cameron's strategy has been broadly correct so far ie open ordinary voters minds so they can listen to us. He himself (reading the DT article) seems to be indicating the next stage is starting soon eg with voters being more receptive to us then more substantive mesages can be successfully transmitted and recieved. I think we all need to consider another issue which is that if he is working hard to open minds we maybe need to be redoubling our efforts on the ground. All elections are local and getting more local,

Matt

[Opinicus]

@Geoffrey brooking
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%.

You work in CCHQ and i claim the £5.
Yougov Political Tracker for Telegraph
Dec C37 L32 LD16
Nov C39 L32 LD16
Oct C36 L36 LD16
Sep C38 L31 LD18
Aug C38 L33 LD18
Jul C39 L33 LD18
Jun C38 L32 LD16

ie there has been no substantial gain in the polls over the last six months DESPITE
Blair being seconds away from being arrested.
Blair admitting his Foreign Policy was a disaster.
The pound at $2 crucifying what is left of our export industry, interest rates going up crucifying what is left of our domestic industry, and therefore unemployment rising.
No improvement in the NHS, tax rises on cars and holidays.
Blair abandoning the examination system - an admission that he has debased it over the last 8 yrs.
Brown destroying the best pensions system in Western Europe.

It is all spin and lies and journalistic copy around an anniversary. A real leader would be addressing the concerns and harnessing the hatreds of ordinary voters not pandering for the after dinner plaudits of the dining rooms of Notting Hill.

Cameron is a personable chap. He looks fresh and pink-cheeked on TV. His strategy is no doubt brilliant. Had we followed it at the last election (or in 2001) we would have done much better. [Remind me someone who wrote the 2005 manifesto]. BUT

This is not the 2005 or 2001 election. It is the late 2007 election. Cameron has embraced Blairism just as the rest of the country has grown tired of it. He has been tricked into embracing Brownism just as the country is beginning to realise of how much it has been robbed and to how little effect. It is the time-honoured hallmark of an old Etonian general always to be fighting the last battle not the next one.

Cameron's strategy is wrong. No ifs no buts.
Six months ago when the figures started to turn round it was necessary to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has stopped the voter throwing up reflexively when he reads about the Conservatives but that is four to six points off the numbers needed to win at a GE that is now less than a year away. There will be a giveaway budget and Labour's polling will improve. It is the power of incumbency, it happens every parliament. I have repeatedly asked on threads on this blog what is the strategy to get from here to there and answer came there none.

Cameron's strategy is wrong.

If we had more time; if Farage would take his finger out and realise what an opportunity he has to rebrand UKIP as The nationalist right wing party; if I thought for a single moment that another putsch would produce a different better leader, I would despair less.

As it is we will have a hung parliament by this time next year and PR by 2008. This will be soup to nuts for Cameron and his bright young things. Cameron will be permanent Foreign Secretary in the new National Government and government leather will polish the bottoms of a lot of his friends, born to deserve it.

For the Conservative Party in the country, for the men and women of England it will be the final defeat.

[matt wright]

Jonathan, I think voters today are more cynical than ever and us not being over 10% ahead in the polls does not suprise me even with the problems Lab are having. There is no enthusiasm for Labour even amongst their own supporters. It was vital that we changed our image as a party for several reasons. To name just 2 - firstly as you say many peoples initial reaction on the mere mention of Tory was instintcively negative and they just didn't listen to our messages (that has changed massively). Secondly we needed and are now attracting younger, more open-minded supporters to bring flesh blood into the party (many of our activists were getting very old). I am not sure where you get the idea that DC has made himself Blair 2 and I suppose it depends what we mean by such a label. I don't think he is another Blair in literal terms. The problem that the new Labour project had was that they appealed to conservatrive minded voters in 97 etc but the bulk of their party never let them deliver on any meaningful reforms. That wouldn't be the case with DC. If however we mean by Blair 2 that DC will be as successful a communicator and will be an election winning machine, that must be good. There is no harm at all as being seen as a natural successor in that sense. I think for many DC would be seen as a more acceptable sensible person to take the baton off Blair than Brown. It is vital that DC is seen as forward looking with fresh vision for the future of our country rather than reactionary, harking after the past and close-minded,

Matt

[Ted]

Jonathon

Would argue in more but why bother - last thing we need is a new leader and your hopes for UKIP will not be realised.
Fact Labour cannot afford a 2007 GE it will find it hard enough to pay for the Scots & Welsh ones. Brown can't afford to pay for new prisons, Reid looking at privatising these and floating them on LSE to raise the cash - so a giveaway budget is unlikely.
Todays ICM poll shows Labour on 30% against Conservatives on 39%, I'd prefer a 10% plus lead but good enough and after 15years better than any other leader has managed.

[Matt Davis]

I really would like all those who imagine that we are attracting droves of new young supporters to provide some real hard evidence for that assertion, because it sure ain't happening in any of the constituencies that I am familiar with.Certainly until there are some actual favourable parliamentary electoral outcomes, on a scale that demonstrates that they are because of the changes wrought upon the party and not just the growing public desire to see the back of Labour, then I personally find that claim to be just more spivvy PR and don't believe it.

[What Modernisation?]

What is Dave’s “more modernisation” then – just like the policy vacuum there is no detail.

Is it changing white, heterosexual male candidates that work for the party, in the city or law and live in the South East to black, gay and women ones who also work for the party, in the city or law and live in the South East? Or stop talking about the EU and Immigration because voters only care about health and education and talk about the Environment and Hugging Hoodies instead?

Labour became New Labour. If we are to change, surely we should become New Conservatives, not New, New Labour.

[Martin Bristow]

I think many Conservatives are simply confused by the last year.We seem to have attempted a repositioning of the party built upon mood music and image projection.

This has plyted well with the liberal minded intelligensia over the dinner table and even got some of them to contemplate voting for us.

But what about the substance.How does all the concerntration on green issues and cosying up to Toynbee help those who feel neglected currently help us.I am thinking about the middle income oevrtaxed family struggling with childcare bills and mortgages living say in Birmingham or Manchester.What hope has our leadership offered thios group in the last 12 months.

This group which poured into the polling booths for Margaret Thatcher (More at her third Election than her first) are now disaffected.The tendency for these voters is too stay at home.It is tragic that at a time that the Labour Party facade has crumbled the Tory party has made not great breakthorugh.

The polls to say the least volatile pointing to a tory lead yes but should we not be doing so much better given the Litany of Government problems.Have we not embraced the Toynbee agenda enough ? is that why we are stuck perhaps if we go the whole hog and become the new labour party we will convince the stay at home Tories to vote for us? Then we can offer more state solutions to every problem extoll the virtues of a high tax economy and give away more control over our national and community life to Brussels and the cult of Quango.

What a prospect!!

[Sean Fear]

Scotty, I don't think we have to choose between a "core vote strategy," on the one hand, or a "drive away the core vote strategy" on the other.

The fact is we have to both keep the 30-33% core vote *and* win an additional 7-9% or so.

And contrary to your assertion, Labour has taken very great care to keep most of its core vote on board - witness the huge amounts of taxpayers' money being transferred into Labour voting parts of the country.

[The Watchman]

As well as it being nearly Cameron's first anniversary of becoming leader, it is also my first anniversary of not being a Tory member, after I had done what I considered to be my duty in voting for David Davis. Having heard Dave Cameron on the hustings, I knew that if he was elected he would start to remould the party as he is doing. So nothing in the past year has come as any surprise. What is the point of working to elect a Conservative Government that apes New Labour at every opportunity (and with far less skill)?

Steve Hilton et al may believe that core voters have nowhere to go, if the Daily Mail is correct. Hoever, I would rather sprinkle Polonium-210 over my fish supper than vote for people who don't share my values. I would feel sullied by voting for a Blue Labour party. I might be alone but I doubt it. There are plenty of natural Tories who already go elsewhere at European elections (I used to)- and I bet a fair few contribute here. The core vote is not enough to win an election but its decline makes defeat a certainty.

Why do people not pay attention to the Republican victories prior to this year? Karl Rove and his chums realised that if the core vote is allowed to float away into abstention then elections end up being lost. By contrast elections are won by consolidating existing support and adding to it, rather than casting off existing support in the hope that others may be attracted to you.

Or if you want an example of what can happen when you set out to alienate what should be bedrock support, look at the sad wreckage of the Ulster Unionist Party which followed such a strategy under David Trimble.

There is no iron law that people with conservative views should have to vote for a Conservative Party that sometimes reveals its contempt for their values. I don't believe the Conservative Party can win a national election, not least because the Cameroon Effect doesn't resonate beyond a metropolitan/southern audience.

If Gordon Brown has any wit he will scrap first past the post because that will have the effect of splitting up the uneasy coalition that is the modern Conservative Party, just as Ted Heath split up the then monolithic Ulster Unionist Party by proportional representation in the early 1970s. At least we genuine conservatives would have a properly right-wing conservative party that is worthy of our support.

[Yet Another Anon]

If Gordon Brown has any wit he will scrap first past the post because that will have the effect of splitting up the uneasy coalition that is the modern Conservative Party
If he introduced something such as STV, it would also cause the breakup of the Labour Party, in fact it might leave the Liberal Democrats as the largest party or UKIP could sweep to power so I doubt he will, possibilities are that Labour would introduce Alternative Vote as recommended by the 1994 Plant Commission or the Alternative Vote Plus system that Roy Jenkins saw as a compromise between what the 3 main parties favoured, there is a lot of support for First Past the Post in both main parties though in parliament.

[Yet Another Anon]

Fact Labour cannot afford a 2007 GE it will find it hard enough to pay for the Scots & Welsh ones.
The fact is that Labour would lose it's majority if it held a General Election next year, it's going to be on European Election Day along with the Local Elections and in the next 2.5 years Gordon Brown is going to be campaigning.

[Scotty]

"And contrary to your assertion, Labour has taken very great care to keep most of its core vote on board - witness the huge amounts of taxpayers' money being transferred into Labour voting parts of the country."
Sean, I do not think that we will agree on this one. We have over the last 3 GE produced a "button down the hatches lets protect our core vote" strategy. The results of which have been not only a 3 term Labour government but also a conservative opposition in no where near the position of the Labour party when they faced their 3rd election defeat.
Labour has appealed to many beyond its core vote and it is those voter's rather than their core vote that Tony Blair has concentrated on with great success.
You mentioned early in the thread that we had to "unite or die", well I don't know where you live but I know that up in the North and in Scotland we need drastic change with a focus on connecting with people WHO are natural conservatives but have seen the party so eroded in their area that it is deemed a wasted vote.
I just don't think that you realise just how "Southern" a core vote strategy is and also how much it perpetuates the myth that the "tories only care about themselves"

[Sean Fear]

" I know that up in the North and in Scotland we need drastic change with a focus on connecting with people WHO are natural conservatives but have seen the party so eroded in their area that it is deemed a wasted vote"

Quite so. And it is precisely such people who've been left cold by our party's strategy over the past 12 months.

[Scotty]

"Quite so. And it is precisely such people who've been left cold by our party's strategy over the past 12 months."

Sean, a very sweeping statement without a balanced argument which reflects the very state of the conservative party in those area's and the lack of progress over recent years.
In my constituency we have a rising very fluid population with the biggest group being young professional families, these people have to turn back to the conservatives right across the UK if we are to form a government.
Had your argument held water this constituency should have improved its conservative vote instead of which it actually went down at the last GE. This was particularly disappointing as we had remained in 2nd place since losing the seat back in the 90's.
So I can tell you quite categorically that the conservative strategy has left voters up here "cold" for a lot longer than 12 months.
You will then be expecting a zero improvement in the parties fortunes in next years elections while I have never felt so optimistic since the early 90's.
I am also realistic and fair minded enough to expect David Cameron and his team to take a little longer than 12 months to do what a core vote strategy has failed to do over the last 10 years.
He has a much more daunting task in front of him than either Mrs T or Tony Blair ever faced before their first election as PM.
I will give him the chance to actually implement his strategy over a realistic time frame instead of demanding he return to the old method which has been so successful that it has just continued to increase an already firm vote in some area's while actively preventing growth in other area's.
I await the results of the elections next year with interest.

[What Modernisation?]

With everyone presenting a clone of each other in the so called centre ground the only winner will be apathy.” What’s the point of voting when the Government always gets in?” After all, if every football team was owned by a Russian Oligarch what would be the point in watching?

[TomTom]

In my constituency we have a rising very fluid population with the biggest group being young professional families, these people have to turn back to the conservatives right across the UK if we are to form a government

Which constituency is that ?

[matt wright]

Some posters keep asserting that DCs strategy doesn't work in the North but that doesn't ring true in our part of the North. I think the real problem is that in some parts of the North people have just fallen out of the habit of voting Conservative and tend to vote for other parties which they perceive as best able to remove the most upopular incumbent, which is currently Labour. In thos parts of the North where we have kept up an organisation and councillors and kept in touch by newsletters then we are doing very well. Those were the areas where we made gains in local elections and are now posied to beat Labour in regional and general election tests. By-elections have also been good in such areas indicating the opinion polls are correct,

Matt

[Martin Bristow]

I don't think anybody is asking us to choose between a core vote startegy or the the cult of the personality route we appear to be on at present.

Most Conservatives accepted the need to modernise during the leadership election.Indeed there was agreement on this requirement from both leadership contenders.

But the last 12 months have not seen us modernise.We have drifted into the world of the eye catching initative or leadership statement. A world of press briefings which say nothing tangible and soundbite politics.

This is the world of Blair.Over the past 10years the government has been driven by this approach alone and to be frank just look were it has led us.The coming of Gordon Brown will change this.Here is a politician yes who loves the state, but nontheless poses a formidable challenge.

Our leadership's current approach will not work against Brown. The electorate are sick of spin and there is a mood for substance.Witness Brown's recent opening up of a more local feel to Labour Politics, ground which we really ought to have colonised over the last 12 months.

It is not nor has it ever been a choice between core vote or modernising strategy we need to build a conservative movement.There is nothing wrong in talking about a strong approach to Law and Order and limiting immigration. This does not preclude the party from championing local recycling or a more elightened view of drug treatment and rehabilitation.

Conservatives should not stay off any ground.We ought to say what we believe and argue our case. We have lost 12 months by the failure to begin this process.

[Alexander Drake]

Martin a few comments on your remarks:
A world of press briefings which say nothing tangible and soundbite politics.

This is the world of Blair.

It's not just the world of "Blair". It's the world of pretty much every successful democratically elected national leader in a 2006 of rolling news channels, television advertising, direct mail and ever-greater campaign sophistry. It's just that in Britain, this change has happened later (and not fully, e.g. you have dull PPBs as opposed to proper attack ads on TV) during Blair's watch. Standing on the back of a truck with a blue rosette and a megaphone isn't good enough anymore, no matter how important the activist may feel while doing it.

Dismissing a nimble approach to campaigning and messaging as merely "Blairite" equals shooting yourselves in the foot. New Labour is actually a Clinton-era, mid-nineties machine using campaigning approaches which have been used in Australia for around 20-30 years, and longer in the US. It's not a big deal. Yet for too long, the Conservative Party has let Labour get away with it all by being even further behind the curve!

Saying you don't like Labour's approach adds no value, because the "soundbite" approach to politics has already arrived, via Labour - and is demonstrably more effective in delivering election results than our lot has been.

The only way to fight this fire - if you want a change of government, rather than being a think-tank on steroids - is with fire.