The Party needs a positive image too

A MORI poll for The Sun shows that Cameron is liked more than Brown on a personal level, but that the number of people who like Cameron and the Conservatives (19%) are fewer than those who like Brown and Labour (25%).

Today's Sun Says, says:

"TODAY’S MORI poll for The Sun makes sobering reading for David Cameron. If he thinks he can sweep the Tories to power just by being more likeable than Gordon Brown he’s got another think [sic] coming. Voters DO prefer him, but would still vote Labour over the Tories. People have long memories — especially of Conservative debacles like Black Wednesday, when interest rates went through the roof. Cameron has a long way to go."

The poll's findings suggest that Cameron's team should make more use of his Shadow Cabinet and the wider Party, to ensure that the perceptions of "change" aren't limited to the leader . The leadership of the Conservative Party is still often referred to as the Cameron "project" or "experiment" as if it is a seperate entity to the Party.

Indeed, making a big deal of "forcing" women candidates, environmentalism etc on the Party may well have worsened perceptions of Conservatives. There needs to be a sense of the Party evolving as one unit, at the moment people just think its head has mutated.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Mercy Man]

Yes yes yes, all very nice. But is it really a good idea to parade the Party membership around? There are plenty of bad apples still...

[Tory T]

In fact, the poll findings suggested that Brand Cameron is liked a lot more than Brand Tory.

"Indeed, making a big deal of "forcing" women candidates, environmentalism etc on the Party may well have worsened perceptions of Conservatives"

These are Cameron's policies, clearly marked as such, and Cameron's popularity outstrips that of the party... therefore, there's no logic to this.

But Mori is not a true poll, no weightings, so it's irrelevant anyway. I also think the sample was pretty tiny.

[Tory T]

From Mori's website, h/t politicalbetting.com

"I like David Cameron and I like the Conservative Party 19
I like David Cameron but I do not like the Conservative Party 17
I do not like David Cameron but I like the Conservative Party 10
I do not like David Cameron and I do not like the Conservative Party 34
Don't know 20

Q2 Which of these statements come closest to your views of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party?

%
I like Gordon Brown and I like the Labour Party 25
I like Gordon Brown but I do not like the Labour Party 11
I do not like Gordon Brown but I like the Labour Party 13
I do not like Gordon Brown and I do not like the Labour Party 36
Don't know 15 "

[Deputy Editor]

In fact, the poll findings suggested that Brand Cameron is liked a lot more than Brand Tory.

And I'm therfore suggesting that the people responsible for Brand Cameron should think a bit more about Brand Tory.

Fortunately, the figures that have just come out are a little better for the Party than The Sun made them out to be, but I believe my point still stands.

[Tory T]

Sam,

I think you'll find that much of the focus is on making sure Brand Tory equates to Brand Cameron which is so well-liked, hence "vote blue, go green," "change optimism and hope", the oak tree logo, social action projects across the nation's constituencies, etc.

[Matthew Sinclair]

To a certain extent I think the policy group reports should reduce this problem. It will give the Shadow Ministers a lot more to talk about. At the moment we're all about early positioning which emphasises the leaders (broad principles are what a leader should be about after all).

[Matt Kellett]

This is a sound analysis proven by how much obvious distaste the head honchos at HQ have for the membership!

[Deputy Editor]

The Vote Blue Go Green PPBs that highlighted green Conservative councils have been the best example of what I think we need more of, Tory T.

[Ian]

Some unsurprisingly naive comments from Tory T who, against stiff opposition, wins the laurels as ultimate Cameron sycophant.

I doubt whether more than a miniscule proportion of Sun readers are aware either that Cameron has been forcing women candidates on constituencies, or that the party has a new symbol.

Those that are actually aware who Mr Cameron is (now that would have been an interesting question!) probably like the fact that he looks younger, fresher and more friendly than the last Tory leader and the fact that he is only loosely connected with past Tory failures.

They probably know he rides a bike and think he said "Hug a Hoodie", but really the most going for him is that unlike his predecessors and unlike Blair and Brown the public really know absolutely nothing about him...

...which goes for a lot of Tory activists too.

Brand Tory is no more than the sum of its members, and leaving aside those who have died or joined UKIP it actually remains unchanged from the bad old days of The Nasty Party.

[Denis Cooper]

So more people dislike Brown than like him, and more people dislike Cameron than like him, and more people dislike the Labour Party than like it, and more people dislike the Tory Party than like it. Negativity rules, apparently.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Spelling of the day - Minuscule (miniscule is a common spelling error).

As far as I can see this says that labour are disliked more than the Conservative party, that looks like a welcome step forwards as far as I'm concerned.

[Ian]

Well clap clap clap Cardinal.

I'd better keep a weather eye open for your next typo.

[HF]

I agreed with what the Deputy Editor has said until "making a big deal of "forcing" women candidates, environmentalism etc on the Party may well have worsened perceptions of Conservatives."

This is not borne out by the facts.

Cameron has improved the party's image and made us more, not less, electable.

[Deputy Editor]

We have been made more electable by and large, but I think what people think about Conservative Party members is a distinct issue.

[jorgen]

Voters DO prefer him, but would still vote Labour over the Tories.

Then it is time to tell the voters that the Conservatives go for a small state and will give tax cuts.

[Richard Carey]

This trend has been shown in a couple of polls during the last year, showing Cameron polling higher than the Conservative Party as a whole. There have been efforts made to transfer this popularity across, as we'd be extremely short-sighted not to try and tap into this. In the first couple of months of DC's leadership, some effort was made to deliberately promote "Cameron's COnservatives.

We do need to do more, particularly in some local associations, to demonstrate that there is a cultural change underway within the party. Has anyone's local association sent them material in the last couple of months with an old torch logo on it? I know visual identity is only a very small of building or rebuilding a brand, but it does indicate buy-in to the agenda, and it's really not a huge effort to get it right.

I've also made a particular effort in, for example, ward-level literature under the new visual branding to show some of the "new" messages in context with "more traditional" items with a little "politics of and" of my own. Talking about improved local kerbside recycling is a environment issue in the Vote Blue Go Green mould, and doing it efficiently is about keeping the council tax bills of hard-pressed local residents down.

I think in many small ways such as this we can help demonstrate change within the Party, and deliver Brand Cameron on the ground in such a way that it appears to be more evolution than revolution and hence comes over as far more credible.

I am sure that someone will take issue with my "demonstrate cultural change within the Party" comment above, so let me head that off already. If you want to improve our standing with the electorate, and indeed translate that few-point advantage that Cameron has over the rest of us to solid voting intentions at all levels, change cannot be a dirty word. You don't do it by sticking your fingers in your ears and sitting and waiting for the electorate to change their minds. If you want different results you have to do different things.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

No need for rudeness at someone trying to be accurate, I was being polite and hoping that others, like myself, would be happy to learn something.

[Simon]

I make the point i made before- re: the poor quality forces housing at RAF Brize Norton- why did Cameron not invite his Shadow Defence secretary to comment on this disgrace? Surely if he wanted to foster a 'team spirit' this is exactly what he should have done......

[Matt Davis]

I seriously don't see what any of this genuinely proves other than that the electorate are largely sick and tired of the whole shooting match. When our politics has indeed descended into nothing more than spin, focus groups, meaningless soundbites and a scramble for the mythical middle ground then I for one don't at all blame them.

[RodS]

OK , So far so good. Cameron has made himself more 'engaging' to a wider range of voters by a clever 'body swerve' that appears to take him dashing off to the left wing.

Trouble is the real opportunity lies on the lightly defended right of the pitch. Now is the time to make another sudden switch, sell another dummy and dash for the far right hand corner and crash over the line to the cheers of the long suffering supporters.

[John Coles]

What a thread - all about who or what is liked, the banality of this dragged even lower by Cardinal Pirelli's spelling bee.
If the party had convincing policies then the focus would be on what the country needs and how it is to be done. Thoughts about what is "liked" and reminders of the albatross Theresa May hung around the party's neck would not even surface.
Oh, forget it. Let's just wait for the Leader's next jolly good wheeze.

[jorgen]

Agree, RodS, Cameron and Osborne have done a great job of disclosing the bureacracy, Labour has created and the masses of taxes we pay today. With reference to those, Cameron could announce a set of traditional Tory policy aspirations (still too early for actual policies) and marry them with his new ideas.

[Rudyard.]

Jorgen,have you had any education at all?What are these ideas that you speak of?
Are you intimating that we will reduce taxes if elected?
The traditional Tory policy you speak of is to have high taxes.
Also,what exactly are traditional Tory policies that you mention should be married with Camerons NEW IDEAS?

No wonder we are in a complete mess with "members" like you putting in your ten pence worth.

[Mark Williams]

I think the analysis is simplistic. The numbers shown do not translate directly into votes.

First of all there is more crossover between Labour and the Lib Dems and the SNP. Some of the Like (New) Labour / Hate Gordon votes will be Lib Dem votes and some of the Like Gordon / Hate Labour votes may be SNP voters who like Brown for his Scottishness, or even lefty Lib Dems who like Brown for his Puritanical but who would never vote Labour.

On the other hand there is less crossover between the Tories and other parties. The Like Cameron / Hate Tories includes many recent switches to the party, whereas the Like Tories / Hate Camerons will include many long term supporters who might be inclined to switch to UKIP, but will probably just grumble.

These people are likely to either vote Tory or not at all. The corresponding people in the Brown analysis may well vote for another party even though they approve of Brown or Labour.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

The fact of the matter is, boys and girls, is that the majority do not show any great desire to have the Conservative Party back in power. Dave is probably waiting for a turn-up (he has had more that enough turn-ups, the latest being the arrest of Ruth Thingamejig re honours for cash).
He is said to be popular - isn't surprising, we all like something soft and cuddly, but you wouldn't give it your wallet to look after, no more that you should dream of giving your wallet and control of your affairs to Brussels.
But that Dave boy and the Conservatives ....
well they just wont learn.
I am only joking: I wouldn't want to fallout with Malcolm Rifkin and, anyway, Dave is on course (for the the knackers yard, I am sorry to say).

[Mark McCartney]

I've just returned from a generally enjoyable Burns Night at the club.

Somebody brought along a crop-headed feminist girlfriend. She looked about as much at home as a ham sandwich at a barmitzvah.

The rest of us were moaning about the scum on Big Brother when she suddenly came out with some total crap about "racism and homophobia"

By the disapproving looks anybody would have thought she'd broken wind. She had outed herself as a "lefty loudmouth" and was treated as such for the rest of the evening.

The fact is that normal people aren't interested in leftist concepts. That means that Cameron is out on a limb when he apes the left. He's lining himself up alonside the far-left women's lib fraternity and their male equivalents.

Cameron may be talking the same language as the loonie left but when it comes to the golf club he might as well be speaking Swahili.

[Richard Carey]

I think the positive image thing needs some work, based on the last couple of posts, and some people really aren't getting it, e.g.:

Mark McCartney: she suddenly came out with some total crap about "racism and homophobia"...By the disapproving looks anybody would have thought she'd broken wind...Cameron may be talking the same language as the loonie left but when it comes to the golf club he might as well be speaking Swahili.

Oh dear, old boy, this young lady having the temerity to try to raise and discuss social issues really isn't on, is it? - and in the members' bar too, that simply won't do...

I genuinely hope that you're doing your fellow club members a disservice and they're more open-minded than you give them credit for. (I also hope they're not reading your posts.)

My point, more seriously, is that criticising DC's approach in those terms doesn't answer the main thrust of this thread, as DC polls higher than the party as a whole - i.e. his approach works better than that of some members in the past. How can we catch the rest of the Party up on that gap? I'm not saying it gets us all the way, but it's worth thinking seriously about closing.

That's destroyed my chances of a quick nine holes in the morning, I suppose...

[Oliver McCarthy]

Oooh, Betty! I can't decide whether I'm on McCartney's side or Carey's. OK girls! Handbags at dawn!

The real Cameron agenda, of making the Tory Party more pro-family and pro-"vulnerable" people was obviously pioneered by Iain Duncan Smith and then unceremoniously dropped by Dracula. (Actually it was pioneered by Governor George W Bush of Texas, but let's not go there!) But it's still the only agenda that has the slightest hope of working, and so Cameron has picked it up, dusted it down, and has started all over again.

Personally I'm pretty sure all the enviro-wank stuff is just spin and window dressing. Ditto getting Tory totty into safe-seats, which is more about appeasing weirdoes in his own camp like Francis Maude. It has nothing to do with any real Cameron agenda, still less has it anything to do with getting re-elected. Women in particular I think make political parties less rather than more electable because people (and not just men) do take them less seriously. (And no prattling that this is sexist! Of course it is, but it's also true. So we live in a sexist society! So what?)

[jorgen]

Also,what exactly are traditional Tory policies that you mention should be married with Camerons NEW IDEAS?

Rudyard, if I am to write the script: small government, low taxes, strong administation of Government departments, highly regulated immigration, strong on crime etc. A party has to have these in order to call themselves a Conservative Party.

I am not sure what Cameron's new ideas are as his speeches don't clearly say anything other than what one wishes to put into them. But he apparently wishes to be seen as compassionate, so let him flesh them out and explain how he will fit them into Tory policies.

If there is anything else you don't understand, Rudyard, feel free to ask.

I am BTW not a member. I am a Conservative voter.

[TomTom]

"Like" ? Is this a game show ?

Who cares about like ? respect is what matters, respected for Integrity and for Public Service.

This is not about being liked that was the Blair Trap; it is about leaving office with integrity intact and a sense that some things were NOT done for private gain

[Mark McCartney]

>>I genuinely hope that you're doing your fellow club members a disservice and they're more open-minded than you give them credit for.<<

Don't you mean more Politically Correct, Richard?

I don't know what social circles you move it but do you really suppose that most conservative-inclined country and suburban Middle Englanders are likely to be speaking the same language as this woman?

Oh sorry I forgot. You're a Cameroon, and that requires wearing a Politically Correct mask for the benefit of the far-left media.

Sounds like you've glued yours on.

[Richard Carey]

Don't you mean more Politically Correct, Richard?

No. I don't mean that Mark, I mean exactly what I said. My post was meant to highlight to you how your comment about your club comes across.

Oh sorry I forgot. You're a Cameroon, and that requires wearing a Politically Correct mask for the benefit of the far-left media.

I'm not wearing a mask at all. I suppose your interpretation of me comes from my writings on this site, where the politics within have been genuinely meant on my part. Perhaps you could point to where in those I have been inconsistent? Or better still, contribute to the topic of the thread as to how we can close the apparent polling gap between DC and the Party?

[HW]

Somebody brought along a crop-headed feminist girlfriend. She looked about as much at home as a ham sandwich at a barmitzvah

Class. Especially when you add...

dropped by Dracula

Obviously we need to work on the anti semitism a bit first perhaps?

Someone may not have told you, but women can vote, and the party lost them almost entirely in '97. Fortunately we don't need the votes of your golf club friends, they're not going to vote Labour or Lib Dem, but we do need the slightly more mainstream friends of the crop haired feminista to at least listen to our point of view.

[Mark McCartney]

Actually it was Mr McCarthy (note spelling) who said "dropped by Dracula" but I don't see how any normal person would consider that to be anti-semitic.

There were plenty of normal feminine women at the club last night HW but if you seriously consider wacky cropheaded feminists to be "mainstream" I'm not surprised that you are petrified of posting under your own name.

I think I'd agree 100% with the cropheaded Greenham Common style feminists on just one thing, though.

Never in a million years will they ever vote Conservative.

[Richard Carey]

I think I'd agree 100% with the cropheaded Greenham Common style feminists on just one thing, though. Never in a million years will they ever vote Conservative.

It's fortunate that crass remarks like that are not typical, or you might have been right...

On both this thread and another one today, you seem keen to wall groups of people off from the Party, rather than giving them an open door to come in.

We're a serious political party, not a polite private debating society. Don't you agree that comments like those are unhelpful in broadening the appeal of the Party?

I'm making a slightly wider point than just about your remarks, but individuals join parties, not groups, and they do it for their own reasons. Do you think that second-guessing of these arguments is even partially responsible for some of the polling evidence in this thread?

[Mark McCartney]

>>On both this thread and another one today, you seem keen to wall groups of people off from the Party, rather than giving them an open door to come in.<<

Why would I want to share the party with people that I regard as political enemies?

Actually I don't think there is much danger of the Greenham Women joining the party, but if there were, you can be sure I would give them no encouragement whatsoever.

OTOH I would certainly try dissuade decent Eurosceptics from joining UKIP. We need them here to fight their corner.

[Richard Carey]

Why would I want to share the party with people that I regard as political enemies?

For the benefit of any floating voters that might be passing (this is a public board), and even thinking of taking a dip in the waters, I should point out that the likes of Mark McCartney don't actually get to make a decision about who joins the Party...

[Mark McCartney]

Of course anybody can join the party. The question is how they fit in afterwards. If they have little or nothing in common with the existing membership it's unlikely they'll stay the course.

Richard, are you saying that you want anybody as a member no matter what their views?

Stalinists? Hitlerites? Marxists? Pol Pot supporters?

Sounds like Liberty Hall.

[Richard Carey]

I think this debate is passing the point of any use now - I presume your last remark was humourous, but as it's hard to tell, I thought I'd answer it anyway, then we'll put this strand of thought to bed:

Richard, are you saying that you want anybody as a member no matter what their views? Stalinists? Hitlerites? Marxists? Pol Pot supporters?

If you're involved with the Party, Mark, you may already know that there are ample safeguards that do allow Conservative Associations to refuse membership to those whose declared opinions or conduct are deemed injurious to the aims and objectives of the Party, or likely to bring the Party into disrepute. They are used in exceptional circumstances by local Executives to deal with individuals whose views and affiliations are beyond the pale.

Otherwise my original point stands - we need to broaden the Party, not narrow it, so come and join us!

Now, I think I've gone far enough off-topic...

[Ian]

"Stalinists? Hitlerites? Marxists? Pol Pot supporters?"

These days. It's more likely to be rejects from the Labour and Liberal Parties, along with the obligatory gays, lesbians etc.

The party is making itself look utterly ridiculous. I don't suppose for a moment that the left are taken in by this window-dressing.

Let's get back to the issues we really care about. Crime, immigration and the EU, in no particular order.

[Richard Carey]

Crime, immigration and the EU, in no particular order.

Because, of course, we never talk about the EU on here...

[Graeme Archer]

So there's a gap in the average fondness for Cameron evinced in a poll and the average fondness felt for Conservative party members. Goodness. As a regular reader of this website, I can't for the minute begin to imagine why that might be.

Interesting comment from the Deputy Ed about how the party needs to evolve as one unit rather than having change forced on it. Of course that change was voted for by the overwhelming majority of party members, so wasn't forced on anyone in any sense alien to any democratic process. In any large organisation there is always a drive to go for the path of least resistance - for which read the lowest common denominator - which would mean having a leader who talked about nothing other than the few issues on which we all agree (the people who dislike David Cameron on this site underestimate hugely how much we all agree about tax and the EU). This is what we've done for a long, long time and it ends in failure. The net effect of the Cameron-enforced change is that our poll ratings are higher than they've been in a decade and we're the largest party in local government by a good distance. So, humbly, no, Deputy Editor, I disagree with you completely. The leader was elected for change. He has to lead us, not engage in a consensual right-wing love-in. If you don't like the change you will describe it as being "forced" on the party. If you do like it, you'll describe is as getting what you voted for.

[John Irvine]

Of course that change was voted for by the overwhelming majority of party members, so wasn't forced on anyone in any sense alien to any democratic process.

Rubbish. All they did was vote for a new leader after the previous one had stood down and the competitor had blown it. The guy may have said he'd make changes but so do they all. There's no mandate for what he has actually done eg the "A List"

We've had more than one post by Tories saying they regret making a mistake in voting for him. They're right.

Maybe someone will remind me but I seem to recall that the vote for Cameron was a minority of all party members.

[Julia Clark]

In response to Tory T (January 20, 2007 at 10:17):

Ipsos MORI employs a full weighting scheme. We weight by age, gender, social grade, region, tenure and work status.

The link to our poll for The Sun is: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2007/s070114.shtml

A full explanation of our methodology may be found at: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rd/survey-methods-at-ipsos-mori.shtml

[Graeme Archer]

I think John Irvine's use of "they", in All they did is vote for a new leader is quite telling. I remember it was "we" - as in card-carrying Tories - who voted, overwhelmingly, for the Cameron agenda. It was Changing to Win, Winning for Britain remember, not Changing nothing unless it meets with the approval of people who post on Conservative Home.

[Larry Green]

You weren't the only one to vote for Cameron's then-nebulous change agenda, Mr Archer.

I did too and have been regretting it ever since.

[Wavyyellow]

It's not surprising that whilst people "like" Cameron, there's not really any improvement in what people think about the Party as a whole. The Cameron shadow cabinet is almost invisible and the Party is perceived as not having any real policies.
I mean, why aren't the Conservatives shouting the roof down about Government pressure to stop investigations into corruption over the Saudi arms stuff? How can the Conservatives party be taken seriously on law and order if they don't speak up for the police and back such investigations?

[David Graves-Moore]

I am appalled by the quality of much of the publicity material released by the Conservative Party. The latest example appears in the Localiser. It is suggested that in our campaigns we should proclaim that:
“The Conservative Party today is more green, more local, more family-friendly and less arrogant that politicians have all the answers to the problems we face”.
Can anybody tell me what that means? The latter part of the sentence which begins “The Conservative Party ...” seems to be devoid of meaning when it says “ ... less arrogant that ...” How on earth can anything or anybody be “arrogant that” ? .
It may be, of course, that the writer means “less arrogant in believing that ...” Unfortunately that does not help much because it implies that we were very arrogant but now we are less so. Less arrogant but still arrogant ! Sorry, but the sentence is an incoherent mess. Does nobody read this stuff before it is put out?
More worrying than the solecism indicated above is the assertion that the Party is now more family-friendly and less arrogant. One could argue that the Party seems less family-friendly than it was, and why are we describing ourselves as arrogant? Moreover, the suggestion that the Party is now “more local” seems to be the reverse of the truth.
It is time that the Party got on with selling itself rather than selling itself short. If we keep telling the voters that we used to be awful they might be forgiven for believing us and for thinking that we do not deserve to be trusted now.
If the Party is content to distribute such material it does not deserve to make progress. At the very least we should employ someone to proof-read, but please let us have less self-flagellation (especially when it is not deserved).
David Graves-Moore