71% of Tory members are satisfied with David Cameron

Dissatisfaction with David Cameron reached 32% in ConservativeHome's previous survey of grassroots opinion.  The poll was taken in the immediate aftermath of the Toynbee controversy, the 'Tosser within' advertising campaign and a couple of opinion polls that saw the Tories trailing Labour.  David Cameron's position improved during December.  Satisfaction rose from 67% to 71% and dissatisfaction levels eased from 32% to 28%.

53% of members think it fairly likely that David Cameron will be Prime Minister after the next General Election and nearly 19% think it very likely.

68% think that the party is on the right course with 26% thinking it to be on the wrong track.

Comments

[kingbongo]

I can almost hear your teeth grinding Tim as the grudging editorial is reluctantly tapped out!

[jorgen]

Has the percentage gone up because so many people have left? :)

[HF]

Looks a good result for DC because this site's contributers has a larger than typical, % of EUKIP folk. (Example the 40% UKIP tendency in previous survey).

and Jorgen pops up to illustrate my point.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

Jorgen is absolutely right. The majority of people don't bother responding to these surveys as they've no intention of renewing their membership, no interest in the Tories and no intention of voting Tory again.

[Londoner]

What nonsense from Jorgen and Stephen Tolkinghome. These figures very much reflect my own impression from local party members etc and it is entirely likely that the Toynbee nonsense, mostly the poor spinning from a previously blameless but obscure new MP for Tunbridge Wells, would have caused a downward blip in November.

But this year will clearly be crucial as the policy groups report, we see the leadership's emerging full range of policies resulting from that, and we also see how Cameron does head-to-head with a new PM - no longer the phoney war.

Also - to defend the Editor - I do not detect any wish on his part for Cameron to fail, or anything particularly unbalanced. My own cavil would be that he seems to be so pro-US, but he's hardly unique in the Party on that.

[Editor]

Thanks for the support Londoner!

I absolutely want the Cameron project to succeed but I want it to be broader and have consistently argued that. 'The politics of and' has been the starting point of my criticisms of Michael Howard (too much on immigration, too little on social justice) and David Cameron (a welcome appeal to ABs but not enough for C2s etc). I've already welcomed this year's early emphasis on issues likely to appeal to 'striving voters' and hope it deepens.

I don't know if my position is so much pro-US as believing that we are in a deadly war against Islamic facism and cannot afford to lose it. It is in the British interest that Islamism is contained as much as it is in the American interest and Iraq is currently the frontline of the war on terror.

[Mark McCartney]

I don't like the term "Islamic fascism"

Some secular Muslims such as Saddam Hussein may have espoused an ideology in some ways similar to fascism, but as regards Bin Laden and his fundamentalist followers it is way off the mark.

[Simon]

I think the editor's quite right about the term 'islamic fascism'. Again, he's correct that the west cannot afford to lose this conflict. But with most of the 'strategy' ( i use that word in the loosest posssible way) being developed by the USA and George Boom -whoops- Bush, i see this conflict being a complete balls-up for decades to come. On the wider point being Cameron, I just hope that the policy review is a serious strategy for the party repairing the damage of more than a decade of Labour 'government'. If the policy review is 'fluff' like 'hug a hoodie' i hold no hopes at all for the party if we get into government at the next election. Like most conservatives, i reserve judgement.

[Off Message]

Simon - did you read the "hug a hoodie" speech? It was a serious attempt to analyse the issues around youth crime and disillusionment and, whether you agree with it or not, was certainly not fluff.

Cameron's main point was a profound one: if children grow up without love then, hurt and aggrieved, they become more likely to behave badly and damage others.

I don't just want policies to build more prisons and provide honest sentencing but others that support families to stay together and do the right things by their kids.

[Ian]

So they may do, but that's no comfort to the victims of crime.

Successive governments, especially those of the left, have mollycodddled these thugs for years.

I'm not interested in these "love a lout" excuses for the inexcusable. What these young thugs need is a taste of their own medicine.

If Cameron had ever been mugged, as I have been (twice) he might stop spouting this liberal do-gooder garbage.

[Mark Fulford]

If the policy review is 'fluff' like 'hug a hoodie'

It seems there were two groups who were ready to unquestioningly swallow Labour's spin on that speech:

1. the press and
2. those who actively want Cameron to fail.

Look at what he actually said and you'll find that far from being fluff, Cameron's speech was brave, deep and very Conservative.

[Mark Fulford]

If Cameron had ever been mugged, as I have been (twice) he might stop spouting this liberal do-gooder garbage.

Another person who clearly didn't take the time fo find out what Cameron actually said. Do these phrases ring any bells?

"We need tough sanctions, protection and punishment."

"So we have to have justice - we have to fight crime firmly and completely."

"Justice is about setting boundaries, and stepping over those boundaries should have painful consequences."

See if you can guess which speech I've taken them from...

[Ian]

No it wasn't, and if he didn't expect it to be "spun" he was extremely naive.

It included such tosh as:

We - the people in suits - often see hoodies as aggressive, the uniform of a rebel army of young gangsters.
But, for young people, hoodies are often more defensive than offensive.
They're a way to stay invisible in the street.

We have to show a lot more love.
We have to think about the emotional quality of the work we do with young people.

You stand for love.
And not a soppy love! I don't see anyone soppy here.

OK let's find out who wrote the speech and sack him.

I'm not yet 100% convinced that Cameron is a wrong 'un, but he has to be programmed back onto the right course.

He's been taking bad advice from the wrong people.

[Richard Carey]

OK let's find out who wrote the speech and sack him.

Firstly, a semi-serious question, Ian. I think you were the first to parrot Labour's "love a lout" line on this thread - that's really not helping us, so why, in the terms of your own directive, shouldn't we "sack" you?

Something did go wrong with the communication of these speeches - the message that hit the headlines was not the one we intended. It happens - we should have dealt with it, learnt from it, and moved on.

Where we all do need to get better is in how we respond to these communications "incidents" at all levels within the Party when they do happen,as they inevitably do. Honourable respondents to this thread notwithstanding, I am dismayed at the number of apparently Conservative posters on here who in the past have willingly disseminated and reinforced Labour spin rather than rebutting it absolutely.

Indeed, several members "offline", councillors included, have collared me about what they referred to as the "hug-a-hoodie speech" etc (to be met with pretty short shrift and a little education for spreading Labour's messages for them...).

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"I'm not yet 100% convinced that Cameron is a wrong 'un, but he has to be programmed back onto the right course."

It's Shameron who's doing the 'reprogramming' here. He's reprogramming a number of the rank-and-file to think and do as he says they should. He knows that he can bend many people to his 'cause' by simply saying that his way is the path to power. It seems too many people on this blog are prepared to ditch any principles they may have had in exchange for power. Others are not, and were never, Tories in any event. They're just keen to hear that the 'opposition' has now jumped upon the liberal consensus bandwagon.

The problem is that the Tories under Shameron will never gain that power, so your casting off of principle is just a waste of time. I also notice the steadily falling number of posters on these boards. Proof, if any were needed, that the Tories are now a busted flush with Shameron in charge, and interest has waned considerably and will continue to do so. Watch membership numbers continue to fall, through to the next election.

[malcolm]

Quite suprised that there has been so little comment on this site regarding DCs role in helping to solve our debt problems.Surely this will ease the need for our party to support an increase in state funding. Wholly wrong in principle,unnecessary in practice.

[Rudyard.]

Going back to the numbers, and, getting back on topic,are we to be pleased that 28% of us are dissatisfied with,and,don't support Mr Cameron?

Have we really come to accept such numbers as being in the "very good"category,rather than the "still has a lot of work to do,"or,the,"must try harder"one?

Also,what would the real numbers look like if we were up against a real PM who was doing the things his mandate allowed him?

Please,don't slack off or relax over these numbers, because tomorrow,they could be rocketing over the top or,diving down to new lows because of even more defections to you know who.

[jorgen]

HF, what you and a number of other people here don't seem to understand is that most of the UKIP-voters intend to return to the Conservative Party once the Cameron experiment ends. In other words, you should count most of them as highly dissatisfied Tories.

But what I meant was of course that it looks like many dissatisfied have stopped reading this blog.

[jorgen]

Rudyard: Have we really come to accept such numbers as being in the "very good"category

I think this is a very important point. I for one was not happy with the last two leaders, but I never considered voting for another party.

[Sean Fear]

Absolutely right, Malcolm. There is no reason to cut a deal with Labour over this.

[Rudyard.]

It would be an extremely astute move,by us,if,now that our finances have improved as much as said,for us to at least delay our push on state funding,this would immediately have a great impact on Labour and its core funding element along with their members/supporters.Could be the chance we are looking for.Cut Labour off,without a penny of State Funding on the horizon,and they will be totally routed and devastated.Labour are in deep financial panic,they would not survive such a move if implimented now,thats a fact.

[Hug a Druggie]

I am so glad that Dave is doing so well.

[Michael McGowan]

I would be surprised if the change in the Tories' financial fortunes leads to them drop their support for state funding. A key feature of Cameron's leadership, backed all the way by Francis Maude, has been centralising the Party and giving the Party at Westminster greater control. State funding assists that process by enabling sitting MPs to ignore the wishes of Party members and supporters.

[election winner]

"A key feature of Cameron's leadership, backed all the way by Francis Maude, has been centralising the Party and giving the Party at Westminster greater control."

Presumably the accident-prone perennially late Maude will be off soon. After all, the party does have a general election to fight.

[Ian Lewis, Wallasey, Wirral]

Oh picky picky picky! None of us (I suspect) has ever agreed with everything that any Leader has ever said or done but, and it's a big BUT, there is no doubt we are on the right tracks. The Party is not a debating society - we are in it to win. Two years ago, I would never have stood a chance in the ward where I am standing in May 2007. Now, there is every possibility I will be that community's first EVER Conservative Councillor. Dave? Carry on matey!

[Richard Carey]

Now, there is every possibility I will be that community's first EVER Conservative Councillor.

All I can say is go for it, Ian - I'm wishing good luck (and great stamina!) for you and your campaign team. I am sure the the Party locally is giving you full support with your campaign to help us break new ground!

Winning new seats in territory previously thought of as off limits even at local government level is not just evidence that we are "changing" in a positive way, but helps create momentum and makes that the story on the morning of May 4th.

[Scotty]

"The Party is not a debating society - we are in it to win." Brilliant, and good luck!

[Richard Carey]

Going back to the numbers, and, getting back on topic,are we to be pleased that 28% of us are dissatisfied with,and,don't support Mr Cameron?

No, I don't think this is something we should be overly pleased about, but nor is it highly unusual or a major crisis. I know that every organisation (political parties are not unique in this) has their "not happy unless I'm moaning" tendency, but I'm hoping that that should not constitute 28% of our Party!

It's difficult to make detailed reccomendations on this, as the headline figures obviously don't break down the exact reasons for these members' dissatisfaction. By the way, the post I quoted above is disingenuous - the question in the poll did not explicitly ask whether respondents supported Cameron, only their current level of satisfaction with his leadership. I hesitate to let a comparatively small sample of comment posters on this blog solely inform this.

It does, though, mean that we did ought to work harder to do our best to explain to and debate with this minority of colleagues where we're all going and why - both in terms of political strategy and the way in which we're weaving new strings for the COnservative bow. While I've always been primarily focussed on broadening our Party's appeal to the wider electorate, we do all need to remember to put some work into ensuring that segments of our own organisation don't get left behind in that process.

[Ian]

"Now, there is every possibility I will be that community's first EVER Conservative Councillor"

Seems that Wallasey is set for an earth-shattering event.

However I am old enough to remember when Lynda Chalker was MP for Wallasey and would therefore be far more interested in learning how likely we are to regain the parliamentary seat.

[jorgen]

The Party is not a debating society - we are in it to win.

Those earning their living from politics seems to be able to ignore their principles and be in it to win. The rest of us is in it to vote for Conservative policies.

[Mark McCartney]

Precisely true

[Alexander Drake]

And the only way to be in a position to truly deliver Conservative policies is by winning so that you are in a position to both set the agenda, and form the Government that reacts to big events. There is no silver medal in politics. Gnashing teeth from Opposition is no substitute.

[Mark McCartney]

"we do all need to remember to put some work into ensuring that segments of our own organisation don't get left behind in that process."

I think, Richard, that's called shutting the stable door...

The self-righteous arrogance with which the minority clique of so-called Tory "modernisers" have pursued their monomania has been little short of breathtaking.

This tendency seemed to burst on us about three or four years ago courtesy of Messrs. Portillo and Bercow who, as I understand, now claim to be members of the liberal elite.

Their past records indicate otherwise.

[Mark McCartney]

>>And the only way to be in a position to truly deliver Conservative policies is by winning so that you are in a position to both set the agenda<<

Very true Alexander.

The chief concern, though, is that certain senior members of the party have no desire to deliver Conservative policies is and when they are elected.

[Richard Carey]

The self-righteous arrogance with which the minority clique of so-called Tory "modernisers" have pursued their monomania has been little short of breathtaking.

Assuming you were right, if you had agreed with them wouldn't you have said that it is otherwise known as focussing on something and getting it done? Sadly that's a comparatively rare thing in politics today.

This tendency seemed to burst on us about three or four years ago courtesy of Messrs. Portillo and Bercow who, as I understand, now claim to be members of the liberal elite.

It's a tough job, but I guess someone has to do it... I'm not sure that anyone declaring themselves to be "elite" is convincing though, I think that's best left to others to judge!

[Alexander Drake]

You won't know until the Party wins again will you Mark? ; ) That's a question for AFTER we regain Number 10.

[jorgen]

That's a question for AFTER we regain Number 10.

No, that is too late. The House of Commons unfortunately doesn't allow you to exchange goods that don't fit the purpose.

[Alexander Drake]

That's what a general election is for Jorgen! Predated by a 'competitive' candidate selection process.

[Ian]

"And the only way to be in a position to truly deliver Conservative policies is by winning so that you are in a position to both set the agenda, and form the Government that reacts to big events"

Alexander are you:

A) Claiming that Cameron's, shall we say, more controversial, policies are indeed the true Conservative policies most of us would like to see pursued.

or

B) Let's give the public what we think they want to hear now and bring the red meat on when we're elected?

I have to say it sounds more like "B" to me.

[jorgen]

Alexander, the selection process unfortunately does not allow one to exchange politicians not fitting the Conservative description.

[Richard Carey]

Alexander, the selection process unfortunately does not allow one to exchange politicians not fitting the Conservative description.

I'd love to see what that description is - firstly, do you get to decide who is a Conservative and who isn't? For years some members have attempted to define people out of the Party, rather than defining them in to it as we should.

But to answer your point, all members of Parliament (to whom I assume are referring) are selected and re-selected by Conservative Party members, and in more recent times by the local electorate in open primaries. In what way do you not have the power here?

Let's give the public what we think they want to hear now and bring the red meat on when we're elected?

Ian, I really dont understand why you think that we would say one thing then have to do another? It's far better (and simpler) just to do what we've said, isn't it? Why would you (as a Conservative) wish to paint your own colleagues as dishonest?

We're gradually painting a picture now, of life in Britain under a Conservative government - let's see that picture unfold.

[jorgen]

firstly, do you get to decide who is a Conservative and who isn't?

As a voter, yes.

[Michael McGowan]

Alexander, I think you are being very naive if you think that (a) there will be a "competitive" candidate selection process; and (b) that the electorate will get any real opportunity to weigh up the parties' respective merits during the three-week orgy of platitudes, abuse and spin called a UK General Election campaign.

[Martin Wright]

As Jorgen pointed out at the top, the time to worry is when the membership satisfaction rate reaches 100%.

I'm less concerned with membership satisfaction than with voter satisfaction, by which I don't just mean so-called "core voters" but a wider group of potential returners to the fold. On the face of it the polls look promising. But how much depth and permanence is there? In marketing terms we may appear to be getting better coverage, but how far are we penetrating?

I'm looking forward to seeing policies unfold. I do hope they are going to have real substance and credibility rather than simply being "me-too" policies.

[jorgen]

Cameron will probably follow Blairs strategy from before 1997: very little, if any policy but plenty of soundbites.