A poll for tomorrow's Sunday Times (not yet online) rejects Blair's famous early years claim to be a pretty straight kind of guy. Just 16% told YouGov that they saw the Prime Minister as "honest and straightforward." Over half (56%) said they believe he awarded peerages in return for loans/ donations to the Labour Party. 55% want Tony Blair to leave Downing Street now.
Despite Labour's woes the Tory lead is down slightly on the previous YouGov survey. The Tories enjoy a 37% to 32% advantage with the LibDems unchanged on 18%.
See the News channels are reporting that Cameron smoked cannabis. Here comes a load of outrage about something we all pretty much knew.
Poll looks about right. I think we're at 37-38 at the moment. Makes you wonder what it will take for Labour to go below 30.
Still bad news for Ming.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | February 10, 2007 at 20:17
Well, very few politicians are what they seem - IDS, Michael Foot, Margaret Thatcher, John Smith, Menzies Campbell, David Steel, Jim Callaghan, Clement Attlee, Hugh Gaitskell, Winston Churchill, Alec Douglas Home had much less desire than most to seem what they were not but all played to the gallery sometimes with an act; Tony Blair and David Cameron are both anything but straight kinda guys.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | February 10, 2007 at 20:20
Things bumping along in mid-term with little change that I can see, most of what has been said in the past 9 months could be said again - things on course for Labour and the Conservatives to improve their respective positions at the next General Election and the Liberal Democrats to have a setback.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | February 10, 2007 at 20:22
Thanks Andrew. I saw the 'Cameron smoked cannabis story at Eton' a little while ago and thought it best ignored.
It's on Sky for those who want to read this non-story.
Posted by: Editor | February 10, 2007 at 20:30
I agree Tim. All the fake outrage is pretty pathetic.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | February 10, 2007 at 20:38
"Makes you wonder what it will take for Labour to go below 30."
A repeat of the 1983 manifesto and campaign?
Posted by: Richard | February 10, 2007 at 20:55
They won't go below 30 for a sustained period. Having experienced near oblivion in 1983, the Labour party knows too well the importance of keeping the public on side.
If they did poll in the high 20s, Blair would be gone in days, not months.
Posted by: CDM | February 10, 2007 at 20:58
From what I gather, it would be difficult to find anyone under, say, 45, who has not at the very least tried marijuana or cannabis.
Coming from a very protected environment, I knew nothing about drugs in the early 60's, but some of us sure knew things about sex that we'd rather not have publicised, so I don't think we should get too hot under the collar about Cameron!
Posted by: sjm | February 10, 2007 at 21:02
I'd be more alarmed if our Dave hadn't tried cannabis before now.Lord Tebbit is giving a good interview on this, stressing that we want to hear Cameron's views on the major issues like tax,the EU,nuclear power etc etc.One day ---perhaps.
Posted by: michael mcgough | February 10, 2007 at 21:06
We all know from the leadership campiagn that Cameron had done something and no one was really bothered. This story being classed as breaking news on Sky has a whiff of fake outrage about it.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | February 10, 2007 at 21:09
At least it makes DC look vaguely interesting now.
Posted by: eugene | February 10, 2007 at 21:19
"See the News channels are reporting that Cameron smoked cannabis. Here comes a load of outrage about something we all pretty much knew."
Are you for REAL? This is FANTASTIC news! Gordon Brown admitted that he never took drugs - Cameron did! Great news for those of us trying to win over our generation (18-30)
I mean who the hell apart from a few odd balls (Brown and Widdecombe) has never smoked dope, taken an ecstasy tablet or (God forbid) snorted a line of coke?
BREAKING NEWS: David Cameron is officially a member of the Human Race!
Posted by: Andrew Price | February 10, 2007 at 21:26
While I don't think it's a newsworthy story that DC smoked cannabis it is irresponsible to celebrate it, Andrew Price. The new strains of on-the-street cannabis are very dangerous. The mental health consequences of cannabis are increasingly well-documented. The social taboos against drug abuse should be rebuilt.
Posted by: Editor | February 10, 2007 at 21:34
Not sure I'd describe everyone who hasn't tried drugs as an oddball Andrew. For all the offers, I've never fancied the idea of drugs and I'm not that oddball.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | February 10, 2007 at 21:48
Another solid poll for us. With our vote pretty firm and Labour's soft, I think we should be pleased and optimistic. A hung Parliament remains the most likely outcome of the next election but Labour could easily score 32% with us on 42% if we continue to avoid mistakes and weather Brown's bounce I'm sure we'll be over 40% by this time next year. It's all looking pretty good.
Posted by: Off Message | February 10, 2007 at 21:58
DC tooks drugs? Shock horror. If he had just admitted this in the leadership election it wouldn't be a story. Still, at least he didn't tell any lies about it, like he did with his promise on the MEPs issue.
I agree with the Editor - glorification of drug taking is at best irresponsible, and at worst downright stupid. However, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am a regular abuser of two very dangerous drugs - alcohol and nicotine. But they're legal still (well, nicotine not for much longer).
Posted by: Jon White | February 10, 2007 at 23:04
"I am a regular abuser of two very dangerous drugs - alcohol and nicotine. But they're legal still (well, nicotine not for much longer). "
Maybe my comment was in appropriate, and this isn't the place for a drugs debate maybe. However, I really hate hypocracy over this issue. I just get angry over the distortion of facts when it comes to drugs / tobacco / alcohol etc. The latter two are accepted, when they cause far more harm. 500,000 ecstasy pills taken in the UK a week. So over the past 20 years that means 520,000,000 ecstasy tablets have been consumed and 200 people have died. Over the same period 2,400,000 deaths from tobacco related illnesses. So, Editor - why not start building some social taboos against alcohol and tobacco?
Posted by: Andrew Price | February 10, 2007 at 23:12
Andrew, I agree with you. I have worked with alcoholics, and had a close in-law who suffered from this terrible addiction. I know nothing about ecstasy so cannot comment. My point was agreeing with yours on hypocracy - so what if DC smoked cannabis - booze and fags which are perefctly legal kill many more.
Posted by: Jon White | February 10, 2007 at 23:16
Both Andrew Price and Jon White are mispelling hypocrisy in the same way.
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | February 10, 2007 at 23:32
Sorry, I am dyslexic. Spelling is not my strong point.
Posted by: Andrew Price | February 10, 2007 at 23:37
Still no sign of Dave hitting 40% in the polls.
What annoys me about these polls about Blair is that they're all so predictable. I could tell straight away in May 1997 that everyone would basically be licking Blair's shoes for the first 2 or 3 years, then people's feelings would switch to indifference for about 5 years, to be finally followed by total loathing in his last 2 or 3 years in office. That's exactly what's happened, and it's all rather boring actually.
Posted by: Andy Stidwill | February 10, 2007 at 23:49
SJM, sorry to sound like the class prude but I'm (well) under 45 and I've never tried cannabis or marijuana - never come close to wanting to - or cigarettes for that matter. Filthy little habit!
I'm not going to claim that this is a story, or that there's anything especially shocking or wrong with what Cameron did - provided that the Tories avoid this becoming a "one rule for a middle class, public school-attending drug user but let's lecture/stereotype/condemn poor working class drug users" issue.
Posted by: Peter Coe | February 10, 2007 at 23:52
This is absolutely shocking and will ultimately push voters towards the comparitively moral, upstanding Gordon Brown.
I don't care if Cameron was young when he did it or not - everyone has their own consciousness.
Who do Christians have to represent them these days? Certainly not the Conservative Party that seems to be slowly but surely slipping back to the hedonistic days epitomised by Alan B'Stard?
Maggie T, and her values her Methodist father instilled in her seem so far away now. Such a shame.
This man will never mend the broken society he proclaimed of himself. How can he crusade against immoral elements in civilisation such as drugs and junkies, when he partook in their lifestyle himself.
Widdecombe for Prime Minister I say.
Posted by: Andrew Morrison | February 11, 2007 at 01:23
Andrew Morrison, what a sad comment.
Firstly, this is a POLITICAL party, not a religious one. Your faith is your business, it has nothing to do with conservatism.
In response to you comment that a man cannot condemn the wrongs in society if he has (albeit 25 years ago) partaken of said wrongs, I would refer you to the bible - 'more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents' etc etc etc.
Posted by: Jon White | February 11, 2007 at 03:04
Andrew Morrison, what a sad comment.
Firstly, this is a POLITICAL party, not a religious one. Your faith is your business, it has nothing to do with conservatism.
Yes Jon White/Andrew Price it is a sad reflection on the pitiful state of "education" that you know so little of the history of the Conservative Party and the pillars upon which it was built.
Because those pillars were damaged and destroyed by Heath, Thatcher, Major and have almost completely buckled the Conservative Party cannot get elected and now supposes it can get a LibDem majority on the back of Conservative voters.
It was a problem for LibDems to get votes from Labour and Conservative without losing one group or the other, but flying a flag of convenience and campaigning under two banners is their best hope of entering government.
The Conservative Party was The Anglican Church. Political Parties are founded on religion - Conservativism on the Church of England; Labour on Methodism; Liberals on Methodism, Congregationalism, and Baptism.
The attempt to use Socialism as a substitute religion has destroyed the political process simply because Socialism is the religion of State Power
Posted by: ToMTom | February 11, 2007 at 08:37
'more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents' etc etc etc.
WE await public repentance
Posted by: TomTom | February 11, 2007 at 08:38
"Yes Jon White/Andrew Price it is a sad reflection on the pitiful state of "education" that you know so little of the history of the Conservative Party and the pillars upon which it was built."
Its a good reflection on the state of the education system that so few people are religious these days. Education gives us the freedom to discover new ideas, and the intelligence to comprehend that religion is beyond common sense.
Posted by: Andrew Price | February 11, 2007 at 10:10
""Its a good reflection on the state of the education system that so few people are religious these days. Education gives us the freedom to discover new ideas, and the intelligence to comprehend that religion is beyond common sense.""
I cannot quite work out whether Andrew is either trying to offer us a parody of himself or believes such shallow nonsense.
Your contribution to this thread has swung from inane through insulting to self-satirising and does nothing for of value for ConservativeHome.
As to the topic, I am concerned on two fronts: firstly, Mr Cameron's activities at school appear to give some sort green light to dabbling with Cannabis. That's a pity because - as discussed and illustrated on this thread - it is a dangerous substance.
But secondly and more worryingly, I have an instinct that there is more to come and another episode will develop at the worst possible time - during the election campaign.
Posted by: John Coles | February 11, 2007 at 10:35
From The Sunday Times: "Today’s poll ratings would produce a hung parliament, with Labour as the largest party with 294 seats, the Tories on 277 and the Lib Dems 47."
Posted by: Editor | February 11, 2007 at 14:49
It's a mildly disappointing poll with a one point switch to Lab from us. But I have no doubt things will improve, I think fairly dramatically, after May.
I will be interested to see the impact, if any, of the cannabis stories on the polls.
Posted by: Tory T | February 11, 2007 at 14:59
Editor: you are obsessed with predictions of hung parliaments. Is this because you believe your poll of polls? Surely not. Or could it be because you think the more you bang on about hung parliaments, the more space there is to advance the more and more obvious Conservative Home right-wing UKIP-are-everywhere-aren't-they-even-though-no-one-has-met-any agenda?
Posted by: Graeme Archer | February 11, 2007 at 16:41
What Mr Cameron (or any politician) did years ago shouldn't matter. What matters more in my mind is his current beliefs and policies.
It was sad reading the posts saying DC's past drug abuse will increase his vote, make him a member of the human race and so on. Many say cannabis is far from a harmless drug. DC could therefore set an example by saying he was wrong and warn against drug-abuse. I think he did effectively say in his leadership campaign that he did wrong.
Posted by: Philip | February 11, 2007 at 17:55
Usually when people talk in mid term about a majority government being replaced by a hung parliament, usually the government at the following election runs out with a healthy majority - the press have to have some kind of story to attract the public's attention and make money, in every single parliament the press start talking at some point about hung parliaments and go on for some length of time or other - and the only time it's actually ended in a hung parliament was February 1974. In the mid 1970's, early 1980's, mid 1980's and early 1990's all the talk was about the Liberals\Alliance forming a coalition with someone, even in the mid 1990's there was some talk of this, in 2000 there was briefly press talk about a possible Conservative revival and they might win, again in 2003/04/05 there was talk of this and then suddenly the story switches to being government wins again or new government sweeps to power and talk of Liberal\Alliance\Liberal Democrat dissapointment and the press talks as if somehow they knew it all the time and no doubt most of them do, but as well as giving variety they have to sound authoratative too, then as in past elections the press talk as if somehow the victorious party will win forever because of course merely for them to have won for now is no story again. Labour in the 1970's went from being talked about as the natural party of government to being "out of power forever", in 1987/89 Mrs Thatcher was invincible - in 1990 she was out, in 1990/91 Labour was heading for government, in 1992 the Conservatives had won and would increase their majority and John Major would be PM for 20 years and then suddenly all the talk was of meltdowns and Labour winning every seat and Tony Blair ruling forever most of the press are no more than showmen just making things up as they go along.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | February 11, 2007 at 19:13
Hands up all those happy with 37%
Speak up all those who have a way of turning it into 42%
Posted by: Opinicus | February 12, 2007 at 00:26