The stay-at-homes are a bigger worry than UKIP

Peter Riddell writes an article for The Times this morning in which he says that the Tories have little to fear from UKIP.  He notes that UKIP support stands at only 1.5% in recent Populus surveys and that the "the real danger for the Tories is among former Labour and LibDem supporters who might return to their earlier party loyalties if they conclude that Mr Cameron is not providing a strong enough lead or clear enough direction."

A few observations about Mr Riddell's article:

1. I've already written about the risks of talking about UKIP's agenda. The Greens have grown in support as the environment has topped the political agenda and the same could happen to UKIP's support if Europe came back to dominate Tory speeches and announcements.
2. Gordon Brown could choose to go to the country on the same day as the next European Elections.  This could boost UKIP and make Europe more of an issue at the next General Election.
3. Why do commentators always have to suggest that there is a deep conflict between appealing to potential UKIP supporters and LibDems/ Greens?  Most west country LibDem voters and most Greens share Eurosceptics' dislike of the EU.  More significantly it is possible to address most constituencies simultaneously through the 'politics of and'.  Most Britons believe in strictly controlled immigration and want to invest in medicine and food aid to the world's poorest people.  Most voters believe that gay couples deserve fairness and they believe that traditional marriage isn't properly supported by Government.  Tony Blair was at its electorally most formidable when he was greedy for all political territory.  He did not allow the Tories to develop advantages in any major policy area.  That must be the challenge for the Tories - we must want to dominate political debate from environmental and social justice questions on the one hand to immigration and defence questions on the other.  There are, of course, important choices in politics.  You can't keep everyone happy all of the time but we should be less willing to accept the simplistic notion that appealing to the concerns of more right-leaning voters inevitably undermines more centrist sources of support.
4. Finally the UKIP danger isn't the big one for Mr Cameron.  The bigger danger is the stay-at-home vote.  YouGov's Stephan Shakespeare has written that Project Cameron is perfectly pitched for the voters floating between the three main parties but the risk is that as the parties become more and more similar those people floating between voting and not voting at all will grow.  And the fear is that it is right-leaning voters who are most vulnerable to staying-at-home.  The traditional belief is that the 40% of people who don't vote in elections are more left-wing than right-wing.  That's probably true but there is a good case to be made that the population that is on the edge of voting and non-voting is more conservative/ right-leaning.  The danger for Cameron is in this group - not so much with UKIP although the summation of all the factors could be critical in a tight electoral contests.

Comments

[michael mcgough]

"not so much with UKIP although the summation of all the factors could be critical in a tight electoral contests."

Very critical;UKIP are the value added for Tory defeat,especially at the margins.

[Annabel Herriott]

All the more reason to select Local Candidates who are well known and liked. They will have a personal following who will turn out and vote for them.
No matter how brilliant an A lister is said to be, no matter how glittering "on the night" Will they have the staying power to resist the chance of a safer seat at a by election somewhere else, 6 months or a year down the line?

[Dave Bartlett]

Finally the UKIP danger isn't the big one for Mr Cameron. The bigger danger is the stay-at-home vote.

I don't accept that. Any right-of-centre voter is so sick of Labour that they'll vote with the Conservatives at the next election even if they have to hold their noses.

A more realistic threat, in my opinion, is a Liberal-Demorcrat party lead by Nick Clegg.

Channel Four did a series on the EU a few years ago called "The E Word", if I remember correctly. Nick Clegg and Caroline Lucas both featured heavily, and at the time I found myself wishing that Nick Clegg was force in the Conservative party rather than the Lib-Dems.

On last week's Politics Show. Mr Cameron said that other figures within the Conservative Party would be being put in the spotlight in the coming months. I think that's a really important idea. Present the leading lights of the Conservative party and let the public find one or two they can identify with, even if they don't like Mr Cameron.

In 1997 I voted for New Labour, but the NL figure I was most impressed by was Gordon Brown, at the time I thought Mr Blair a bit of a muppet.

[TomTom]

All the more reason to select Local Candidates who are well known and liked. They will have a personal following who will turn out and vote for them.

my sentiments exactly Annabel - without my local MP I should be supporting the Abstention Party

[Steve]

Ive been making this point for ages, it sounds like a statement of the obvious, because it is!

Why are we so transfixed with the mythical middle ground and the capture of votes deserting NuLab when a simple endorsement of any number of popular, conservative, emotive policies would ensure victory? If we gain not one vote from NuLab with our "decontaminated' policies it would be irrelevant if 10m more people voted for us who would otherwise remain sat at home and ‘disengaged’?

In my own opinion the subjects that would galvanise a significant group of ‘non-voters’ into supporting the Conservative Party would come from the following areas’

EU
Border Control
Iraq Inquiry
Tax Cuts

Does anyone really think that offering a hard line on Europe would attract less votes leaving NuLabour at the next election than would gain by getting people out to vote on something that really matters to them?

[Scotty]

"You can't keep everyone happy all of the time but we should be less willing to accept the simplistic notion that appealing to the concerns of more right-leaning voters inevitably undermines more centrist sources of support."
Tim, I am sorry but I do think that the last 3 GE results we have suffered proves that you cannot do both easily.
We have paid the price for leaning to the right and trying to paper a few cracks appeasing voters who might go to UKIP which has undermined our message.
I think that it is the main reason that after 3 defeats with a Labour government in charge of an unpopular war we were still not seen as a credible alternative.
All it did was strengthen the Conservative vote in the South where UKIP was strongest, while leaving us flat lining or almost extinct with a mountain to climb in the North, Scotland and Wales.
We have gained 30 MP's in 3 elections, but by changing the message and the emphasis away from dog whistle issues we are now looking at making more gains in the next election than the last 3 combined.
Wales looks good as does many key marginals.
As for the stay at home voters, just remind me how voters we lost after 92'?
It is simple, those stay at home/switching voters were lost over the last 10 years and are now coming back to us judging by the best poll ratings we have experienced in years.
We are now GAINING voters again because people are attracted to the Cameron led Conservatives, or are now just fed up with Labour.
It is Labour, not the Conservatives or the Libdems who are rightly concerned about their supporters staying at home or switching to parties like the BNP. I don't buy the argument that conservative voters will either stay at home or vote UKIP to enable Gordon Brown and Labour to remain in power for a 4th term.
In fact the next election could well be the closest run contest since 92' with a real chance of changing the government, an emphasis on a possible hung parliament and tactical voting. These factors tend to focus and motivate voters a lot more than a foregone conclusion which is what we have had since 97'.
But voter apathy and UKIP are not going to be a problem for the Conservatives in the present political climate.

[Valedictoryan]

The Times' photo of Farage is superbly ridiculous.

[TomTom]

judging by the best poll ratings we have experienced in years.

oh dear....delusions....go and see how pollsters deal with that uncomfortable truth that makes their business so preposterous......they cannot account for the 40% voters who do not vote.....they have no idea what to do about a group which is not interested in polls or pollsters or the current array of parties

[David Cooper]

Steve @ 10.04: can I add to your 4 examples: -

Road pricing
Council tax home inspection
Rubbish tax

- all of which threaten to have more direct personal impact on a would-be non-voter, and where principled opposition as a matter of policy (perhaps following David Davis' recent service of formal notice over ID cards) ought to pay dividends.

[Sean Fear]

Scotty, do you think we would have won more votes in 1997, 2001, and 2005, by, say, backing the EU constitution or the Euro, or campaigning for more liberal immigration policies?

[Opinicus]

@Dave Bartlett
I don't accept that. Any right-of-centre voter is so sick of Labour that they'll vote with the Conservatives at the next election even if they have to hold their noses.
@Scotty
Tim, I am sorry but I do think that the last 3 GE results we have suffered proves that you cannot do both easily.
This is the fundamental question which has been argued about on this site for the last year. There is no doubt that Cameron has decontaminated the Party and that this has been responsible for a rise in the polls. But all the polls except the recent ICM one do not show enough support to win a GE. DC is winning floating voters. There is much less evidence that he is winning non-voters. There are so many of these, however, that both parties are reduced to their core votes and there are comparatively few remaining floating voters. From the great run of hung opinion polls the worry is that there are not enough to produce an outright victory. The remaining three per cent needed has to come from re-energising non-voters and that is the problem. Also the effect of alienating the core vote and turning them into non-voters is comparatively greater because there are fewer voters overall. If there is a policy fix there is no point in voting. If there is no choice, why choose?

[AlexW]

Sean: Probably not. It was never a question of what policies we had, but what policies we emphasised. I think that most of the country agreed with our policies on Europe and perhaps those on immigration, but trumpeting it from every rooftop distorted the campaign and made us look obsessed with what were seen as traditional right-wing positions.

At a fundamental level, everyone will assume that Tories are broadly Eurosceptic and favour tightened immigration even if we say absolutely nothing about these issues.

[AlexW]

Sean: Probably not. It was never a question of what policies we had, but what policies we emphasised. I think that most of the country agreed with our policies on Europe and perhaps those on immigration, but trumpeting it from every rooftop distorted the campaign and made us look obsessed with what were seen as traditional right-wing positions.

At a fundamental level, everyone will assume that Tories are broadly Eurosceptic and favour tightened immigration even if we say absolutely nothing about these issues.

[Sean Fear]

Actually, I would be very surprised if voters just assume we'll do the right thing in those areas, although I agree they should not be the exclusive focus of our campaign. For example, most voters believe we will tax them as heavily as Labour do.

I also take the view that had we not campaigned on the EU, we would now be in the Euro, and have had the Constitution rammed through. Had we not campaigned on immigration, it's unlikely that Labour would have taken any steps to cut asylum claims or bogus marriages. So, even in Opposition, it is possible to influence outcomes by launching popular campaigns.

[Don Hoyle]

A few dog-whistles won't go amiss. Look at the Fox Hunters. DC has said that a simple bill, repealing the anti-fox-hunting ban (you know what I mean!) will be an immediate priority for an incoming Conservative Government.

Believe you me, these people are animated, as I saw myself in my area at the last local elections and the GE.

A dog-whistle for UKIP members, such as pulling out of the Common Fisheries Policy, or perhaps the Common Agricultural Policy as a starter, won't go amiss, either. This ought to bring the Conservative-minded UKIP-ers over (euro-phobe Labourites and Liberalites will have somewhere to vote and remain with UKIP) although DC's unfulfilled promise of immediate withdrawal of the Conservative MEPs from the EPP/ED European Parliamentary group is going to colour any election promises or commitments DC might make on that subject, sadly.

Lastly, I have never thought over-much of Peter Riddel's column. He has always struck me as an anti-Conservative commentator; I personally, would not put too much store by him (but, as he is otherwise highly respected, I am happy to be proved wrong).

[UKIP Webmaster]

First they attack you then they try to marginalise you..........

[malcolm]

Rubbish article from Riddell.There are many Tory activists and voters who do as Liam Fox says sympathise with UKIPs view of the EU. Fortunately there are very few who will actually vote for UKIP as they are intelligent enough to realise that under our present electoral system the only benficiaries of a vote for UKIP are Labour and the Lib Dems.
How often are we going to discuss this?

[William Norton]

UKIP Webmaster:First they attack you then they try to marginalise you..........

....but they never actually bother to visit your website, do they? Feeling lonely are we?

[Graeme Archer]

I agree with Don re: Mr Riddell. I don't think I've ever read anything by him that struck me as profound or anything other than a rehash of the broad consensus of the times (fnarr). Which actually made me read him today with a bit of a raised eyebrow (if I could do that, which I can't). I'm sure I heard him on Saturday morning on R4 going on about the importance of appeasing UKIP, arguing against Fraser Nelson who was making the valid statistical and psephological points which appear today in ... Peter Riddell's column! However, I was whimperingly supine with flu at the time so I may have misheard.

Pace the Riddell-on-Saturday view, it would be daft to mention UKIP or whistle at them or anything. This site already talks about them too much. Just ignore them. They are statistically irrelevant (you can't prove anything about seats won/lost because you don't know how else their voters would have voted, see discussions passim) and we'd lose more than we gain by tacking towards them (which is provable, at least in the correlation sense, by inspection of party popularity post-Cameron).

One point I think Tim's onto is the impact of holding the GE on the same say as the euro-fest. Hmmm. Although the biggest problem I'd have, blessed with the memory span of a fruitfly, is remembering the huge list of names I'd have to remind people to vote for. Have you ever had that "**** I can't remember the name of the candidate" moment as you're halfway into the "I hope we can count on your support for X today"?

[Ken Stevens]

Any party’s manifesto is like the curate’s egg, yet we are assumed to endorse every detail by the mere fact of casting a vote every four years or so. Thus there is less incentive to bother about voting if there is no real difference between the main contenders, since we’ll get a mixture of (to each of our particular viewpoints) good, bad or indifferent whichever one achieves power.
Unless the Tories show some clear water between themselves and Labour, then there is nothing eyecatching (except, just now, for the elegant simplicity of the short bill to repeal the Hunting Act).
Boring, predictable bit: Europe is the most important of any subject, because without parliamentary supremacy, most of our domestic issues will continue to arise from outside the nation. It doesn’t mean “banging on” in a strident xenophobic manner- just becoming known for a quiet determination to restore sovereignty (and of course then progressively giving effect to it subsequently). Only then could I return to voting Tory.

[simon]

For F's sake- now 'they' catch on about the potential turnout at the next GE!

[James Cox]

I am beginning to find this argument fantastically boring. Tombstone at its like minded supporters wave UKIP around in the desperate hope the party will be scared into making puddings with custard mandatory etc.

We dealt with UKIP effectively during the 2005 election - simply send a European Union issue survey out to likely Tories - to those that return it in green ink send letters about fisheries policy etc. up until polling day. Worked a treat and stops candidates getting nervous.

[Denis Cooper]

It's a complete misconception to suppose that concern about the EU, or about mass immigration, or about what is presented as a traditional Tory issue such as crime, is somehow the preserve of the right. On the first, the only time we had a referendum on the EEC/EC/EU was under a Labour government, much of the left was consistently opposed to the EEC until Jacques Delors effectively bought their support in 1988(?), and that support is more superficial than solid. On the second, mass immigration always tends to benefit the wealthy, especially those with accumulated capital to invest in the rapidly rising property market which it creates, and tends to hurt those who rely own their labour for their livelihood, especially the lower income groups. On the third, it is the poor who suffer most from the failure of the state to control crime, since they are least able to take measures to protect themselves. The single most important reason for the Tory defeats in 1997, 2001 and 2005 is simple - the previous Tory government had wrecked the lives of millions of voters by subordinating the needs of the British economy to the requirements of EU integration.

[Scotty]

"Scotty, do you think we would have won more votes in 1997, 2001, and 2005, by, say, backing the EU constitution or the Euro, or campaigning for more liberal immigration policies?"
Sean, having looked back at my post I would have to say that your question is about as credible as the conservatives seemed to the public until recently.
I tell you what, why don't we just rerun the last 2 GE's alternatively until we get back into power?

[Sean Fear]

That doesn't really answer my question Scotty.

[Dave Bartlett]

Jonathan said:

From the great run of hung opinion polls the worry is that there are not enough to produce an outright victory. The remaining three per cent needed has to come from re-energising non-voters and that is the problem.

Every election I can remember was chasing the youth vote, and it never yet turned out. People who don't vote, don't vote.

I think Mr Cameron's spiel on 'social responsibility' has a fair chance of enthusing people about conservative politics again. Localism, mouthed by all the parties, but I believe a foundation of the emerging conservative policies, has a lot to attract people who want their vote to make a difference. The people who vote, not the people who don't.

If the sustainable communites bill, put forward by conservative MP Nick Hurd, becomes law, it will be interesting to see if it galvanises the politically active. If it does, they may well be drawn to the increased devolution, individual, and social responsibility offered by the conservatives.

[NigelC]

We lost Harlow at the last election by less than a hundred votes when UKIP and Veritas stood but a potential Respect candidate stood aside.
At the margins it matters.

Now we have Bill Rammell not Robert Halfon as MP

[Scotty]

Sean, I did not think you question was worth answering. I genuinely believe that the emphasis on the EU and immigration over the last 2 GE election campaigns damaged our recovery as a party and have now left us with a mountain to climb.
Even after the disaster of the mistakes in Iraq unfolding for the government they were still seen as more credible than us. Maybe because they moved on and set their own agenda by not concentrating their campaign on the EU and immigration to the detriment of every other issue that the voters regarded as important.
Now considering that most voters are apparently more inclined to lean towards the conservatives view on both issues that is pretty damning!
I don't think that we could have won any of the last three elections but equally we should have improved more than 30 seats in 10 years.

[realcon]

Riddell failed to mention that YouGov about 10 days ago had UKIP on 5% nationally and 7% in the South East. That's enough to stop a Conservative win.

[Gareth]

Should we go fishing in a pond with 20% of the electorate in it or one with 1% of the electorate in it?

[DavidDPB]

The UKIP costing us in the maginals theory only works if you assume no support will be picked up from the centre, and that the only effect Cameron is having is to cream off those on the right.

Yes, UKIP may cost us some votes (and this is being generous to UKIP given their current 1% share in the polls) but the key is whether we can make a net gain out of those we attract from the centre. Current polling suggests this is the case.

[Sean Fear]

So can I take it by implication, Scotty, that you wish our policies on these issues were the opposite to what they were?

[Andrew]

"The Times' photo of Farage is superbly ridiculous."

Let's face it, there's a fairly large number of such photos to select from. The man is a buffoon (and I don't mean in a pleasant/bumbling/BorisJohnson way).

[Alex Forsyth]

Any right-of-centre voter is so sick of Labour that they'll vote with the Conservatives at the next election even if they have to hold their noses.

Which parallel universe is Mr Bartlett living in?

UKIP were languishing in the polls before their remarkable performance in the European Elections, so they may well swing back again. UKIP tends to diappear from the radar between elections.

If they do not, it will only be because their votes are being taken by the BNP.

Possibly the ever-flexible Camerloons are happy to see the BNP doing well at UKIP's expense. Either way, these minority parties are likely to have a crucial effect at the margin.

Last time UKIP cost the Tories around 27 seats and there are increasing signs that the BNP's pitch for "respectability" is attracting some core Tory voters.

As for the alleged 20%, that's a hell of a lot of votes for Cameron to lose once the LibDems get their act back together again.

[Scotty]

"So can I take it by implication, Scotty, that you wish our policies on these issues were the opposite to what they were?"

No Sean, you just don't have a credible argument against the points I made regarding the last 2 elections.
If you want to imply my views on either subject from that, go ahead if it helps you dismiss my point view because I am getting bored.

[Opinicus]

@Dave Bartlett
Every election I can remember was chasing the youth vote, and it never yet turned out. People who don't vote, don't vote.

But we are not talking about the youth vote we are talking about the 15% drop in turnout between the 1992 and the 2005 general elections. Almost by definition these are or were ex Conservative voters. They should be significantly easier to get to vote Conservative than the fringes of the core politicised electorate that still votes. Why isn't any party attracting them, what do they want? It isn't Blairism or they would have voted in 1997 and 2001. It isn't Blu Labour or they would be voting/polling now. What is it? What they want is Maggie. Not in the sense of any specific policy. Mrs Thatcher's popularity was because she offered hope. A believable plan for a better future and the leadership and determination necessary to pull it off. The electorate knows then and knows now that the country is in danger, that the economy isn't working outside the City. The problems and the solutions are different. What is very different is that the Conservative Party is determined to be part of the problem, not the solution. If we get deja vu, it is of 1974 not 1979.

[Dave Bartlett]

Alex Forsyth said:

Last time UKIP cost the Tories around 27 seats and there are increasing signs that the BNP's pitch for "respectability" is attracting some core Tory voters.

The last two general elections the Conservatives have run on "save the pound" and "we don't like foreigners". They lost.

Mr Cameron wants to fight the next election with a positive agenda that people can get enthusiatic about. Good on him. He's learnt from past Conservative mistakes, and he's playing to win.

[Sean Fear]

Well then Scotty, I think you're wrong. I don't believe that our expression of fairly moderate right of centre views has caused us to lose the last three elections. I think you're far too defeatist.

[Gareth]

Sean,

As you well know, such surveys as there have been on these difficult matters show that the punters viewed us as far further to the right of centre than they viewed Labour as being to the left of centre. In the 1980's, when asked to name the 'most extreme' party, the voters opted for Labour. That changed in 1997-2005 and we were seen as more extreme. Are you really saying that this had no effect on our electoral prospects?

[Alex Forsyth]

The last two general elections the Conservatives have run on "save the pound" and "we don't like foreigners". They lost.

A pretty crass example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, if I may say so.

Cleverer men than you gauged at the time that these policies were popular with the public, as they stil are. Subsequent research has shown that their popularity was tainted by association with the Tories -not vice versa.

If you disliked the policies - which were not, of course, expressed in the ridiculous terms you have used - I hope you were honourable enough to resign from the party.

Assuming you were ever a member in the first place.

Mr Cameron wants to fight the next election with a positive agenda

Oh really? Sounds good. Care to let us know what it is?

Policy-lite is Cameron's middle name.

[Gareth]

Excellent Alex. Your resignation will be in the post then will it?

[michael mcgough]

"Yes, UKIP may cost us some votes (and this is being generous to UKIP given their current 1% share in the polls) but the key is whether we can make a net gain out of those we attract from the centre. Current polling suggests this is the case."

A poll is a poll,the Bromley and Chislehurst was evidence under Cameron's lead.

[Denis Cooper]

Above all it's the economy that counts. If people lose their jobs and their homes and they hold the governing party responsible for that then it will lose their votes, and the greater the economic disaster the longer it will take for that party to be forgiven - if ever. What they say about other issues is of secondary importance.

That's why Labour won a massive landslide in 1997, and won again in 2001 and 2005 - because whatever else they may have done that gets up the noses of the voters, they haven't yet inflicted a monumental economic disaster like the ERM.

[Sean Fear]

Gareth,

I would say its effect on our electoral prospects was pretty limited. In 1997, we suffered for reasons that had everything to do with the recession of the early nineties, and the infighting and perceived sleaze of 1992-97. In 2001, we were still suffering from this, and Labour had proved themselves economically competent in the intervening period. In 2005, we started to recover.

I have no reason at all to believe that a more left wing stance would have gained us votes during that period.

[malcolm]

But the economy did well between 93-97 and the Conservative party was still punished. Not everything revolves around the European question Dennis.

[Scotty]

"I don't believe that our expression of fairly moderate right of centre views has caused us to lose the last three elections. I think you're far too defeatist."
Fair enough Sean, that is an argument I can debate.
During the last GE I delivered the conservative leaflets in my ward throughout the campaign, not one person raised concerns about either of those issues. I then went home and watched the various news coverage of the campaign and cringed over the way it was coming over to the public, it was like watching a car crash in slow motion.
It is not defeatist to recognise that both the BNP and UKIP are irrelevant in Scotland locally, in Holyrood or at Westminster.
It is defeatist if you try and build a campaign strategy around trying to shore up a small leak to those parties in some area's, rather than trying to be bold and positive in appealing to a much broader group of voters.
That does not mean we cannot be strong Euro sceptics and leave the EPP or have a coherent message on controlled immigration in the manifesto, in fact I think that a separate border patrol is essential now.
But I personally don't class any of those issues in the top 5 of most voters list of priorities.

[Alex Forsyth]

I have no reason at all to believe that a more left wing stance would have gained us votes during that period.

Most of the public are "right-wing" on such issues as immigration and the EU so the Tories simply occupied the "centre ground" in the sense of the centre of gravity of public opinion.

Cameron, who wrote that supposedly "far right" manifesto, now seeks to lurch to the left in a manoeuvre of breathtaking cynicism.

He calculates that he can keep the right in his trouser pocket while dissembling in order to steal votes from the LibDems.

He calculates wrong on both counts.

[Gospel of Enoch]

On the day that the glorious new statue of Baroness Thatcher is unveiled, see the other thread, it's worth repeating what a lifetime of political wisdom has driven her to conclude: "UKIP take Tory votes because they have a clearer and more principled position on the EU" - Statecraft.

Deal with it.

[Dave Bartlett]

Jonathan said:

But we are not talking about the youth vote we are talking about the 15% drop in turnout between the 1992 and the 2005 general elections. Almost by definition these are or were ex Conservative voters. They should be significantly easier to get to vote Conservative than the fringes of the core politicised electorate that still votes. Why isn't any party attracting them, what do they want? It isn't Blairism or they would have voted in 1997 and 2001. It isn't Blu Labour or they would be voting/polling now. What is it? What they want is Maggie. Not in the sense of any specific policy. Mrs Thatcher's popularity was because she offered hope. A believable plan for a better future and the leadership and determination necessary to pull it off. The electorate knows then and knows now that the country is in danger, that the economy isn't working outside the City. The problems and the solutions are different. What is very different is that the Conservative Party is determined to be part of the problem, not the solution. If we get deja vu, it is of 1974 not 1979.

I think by "Blu Labour" you mean Cameron, and the polls say that he IS attracting support to the conservatives that they haven't seen since '92.

You've got a nice point about Mrs T being a charismatic leader outside of her policies but in '79 she was the NOT LABOUR candidate. Cameron will have a little of that going for him at the next general election, but I think he IS trying to offer "hope" as you put it.

I think this whole 'social responsibility' thing he's banging on about does hang together in a coherent and attractive way. Less top down gov't. Less micro-managing. More pride, more independance.

The sustainable communities bill is a start, and it'll be interesting to see what policies emerge from CCHQ over the coming year. I'm hoping to see some of the policy suggestions from Direct Democracy. We've already had a little taster with the sutainable communities bill which has considerable and diverse support, maybe some of these are the 15% who are staying at home?

[Scotty]

I meant to add that I think the overriding message we need to send to the electorate at the next election is trust, competence and a positive manifesto of policies to run the country, because I think that is where Labour will lose and why the country might be ready for change.

[Sean Fear]

As a matter, of interest Scotty, where did you campaign? Where I campaigned, in North London, and South Herts., immigration was very big indeed, although I agree the EU wasn't.

[HF]

Sean Fear said "I have no reason at all to believe that a more left wing stance would have gained us votes during that period."

I partly agree with you, since the real problem in 01 and 05 was our image. It is only under DC that the image has been significantly improved (I do not use the term decontaminated).

But part of the solution to the improvement has been to speak about a wider group of issues using language that has more appeal to the voters.

Lord Ashcroft's research shows that voters liked what we had to say on the narrow range of issues in 05 but they tuned us out because of who was saying it.

Our image has improved through widening our political dictionary.

If however we were to speak in ways that remind voters of our 90's image, that would be a backwards step taking us back to 33%.

[Alex Forsyth]

It's good to know that the Tory left were so busy warning about the "poison" of such far-right policies as "Keep the Pound".

Two General Elections ago I was on a parliamentary selection committee. A senior official at the Democracy Movement asked to vet the candidates and, naturally, I agreed.

The list came back with Federasts, TRG-ites etc duly marked and footnoted with embarrassing facts, and I made sure they were given a rough ride.

Actually I could have spotted them a mile off.

Every one of them turned up to the interviews sporting a "£" badge.

[Denis Cooper]

"But the economy did well between 93-97 and the Conservative party was still punished." Overall the economy was recovering steadily from the recession, which is why Major hung on to more or less the last possible moment before calling an election. But there were still many voters whose own circumstances hadn't recovered fully, if at all. In any case it takes longer than that to be forgiven - in some parts of the country the Tories are still not forgiven for the events of over two decades ago. If Labour had quickly made an obvious mess of the economy then a kind of forgiveness would have come sooner, but they didn't.

[Scotty]

Sean, I am in the North of Scotland with the yellow peril as the main opposition, which is not that different from quite a few seats down South I would imagine.

[Alex Forsyth]

As a matter, of interest Scotty, where did you campaign?

He claims to campaign in a fired-up, Cameron-friendly, highly-successful association in...Scotland.

Well of course this is coming from Scotty the Scot from Scotland (email address [email protected]) so it must be true.

I suppose the reason he's so coy about the details is that if Murdo Fraser and co find out how well they're doing they'll shut them down in a fit of envy.

[Alex Forsyth]

I am in the North of Scotland

"North" is it?

Presumably up there "successful" means a man with two Scottie dogs instead of one.

I'm bound to say that your previous posts painted a picture of a kind of North British Beaconsfield.

I'd assumed you were in Morningside or somewhere of the sort.

[Dave Bartlett]

Alex Forsyth said:

If you disliked the policies - which were not, of course, expressed in the ridiculous terms you have used

"Keep the pound" was one of the slogans, Mr Hague ran with. Memory told me it was "Save the pound'.

"We don't like foreigners" was the impression I was left with as a voter when Mr Howard was running for PM. I voted Conservative anyway, but that was more AGAINST Labour than FOR the conservatives.

Cameron wants to try something new. Since Mr Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative party they've moved up in the polls. I don't recall that happening with Messrs Hague and Howard. And I think the BNP are as likely to steal votes from Labour as Conservatives.

[Gareth]

There's simply no way of resolving our difference of opinion I guess Sean.

I have a great bit of video though, from the Parliament Channel's repeat of all the 1983 general election coverage. It's an interview with Ken Livingstone, rationalising the Labour defeat. You won't be suprised to hear that, according to Ken, millions of Labour voters voted tory because Labour was insufficiently left wing.

[Alex Forsyth]

Cameron wants to try something new. Since Mr Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative party they've moved up in the polls. I don't recall that happening with Messrs Hague and Howard.

Hague and Howard didn't face a PM holed below the waterline and a crippled LibDem Party.

Cameron's been lucky so far, but that luck can't last forever.

He's peaked too early.

[Dave Bartlett]

Alex Forsyth:

He's peaked too early.

Peaked hell, he hasn't even started yet. :-)

[Yet Another Anon]

But we are not talking about the youth vote we are talking about the 15% drop in turnout between the 1992 and the 2005 general elections. Almost by definition these are or were ex Conservative voters.
A lot of former Labour voters who are either disenchanted with Labour, or who believe a Labour victory is a sure thing - certainly turnout of Labour voters started hardening from 2003 on in General Elections, the Liberal Democrats success since 1992 has essentially relied on low turnout among Labour and Conservative supporters.

[Dave Bartlett]

The Economist's Bagehot column is looking at the possible implications of the Guardian/ICM poll.

Mr Cameron's strength is that despite his privileged background (and rumours of a dissolute youth) he brims with empathy, as Tony Blair did long ago. After a stream of stories about teenagers in south London gunning each other down and a UNICEF report on child wellbeing that put Britain last out of 21 developed countries, Mr Cameron made a speech about putting children first. Its theme of helping families and encouraging social responsibility were familiar Cameron riffs, but the speech resonated powerfully and was widely reported. By comparison, Mr Brown's attempt to grab attention by promising to try and bring the 2018 World Cup to England was clumsy, only reminding people of the rising costs of putting on the Olympics in 2012.

No doubt there will be some sort of “Brown bounce” when Mr Blair finally hands over the keys to Number 10. But this week the odds against Mr Brown sustaining it lengthened.

[Paul Oakley]

The chattering classes personify us as the party of the rich. Inexcusably, we play up to that stereotype by refusing to talk tax. One reason for Maggie's success was her understanding of the aspirations of the C1s and C2s. Council house sales and share-owning democracy anyone? It's about time we tapped into that theme again by proposing targeted tax cuts. Here's some ideas: raise the personal allowance to £10K to destroy the benefits trap; replace bureaucratic family tax credits with an additional "family allowance" through the tax system; allow non-working partners to transfer their personal allowance to their other half. There is no doubt that voters find Cameron more appealing than Brown but this isn't enough by itself.

[Alex Forsyth]

The Economist's Bagehot column is looking at the possible implications of the Guardian/ICM poll.

The Economist would. It's a rotten PC centre-left journal, and has been for years.

The fact that this rag is praising its fellow-traveller Cameron will surprise nobody.

Do you take The Economist Dave, or is it your job to read it?

[Richard Carey]

It's about time we tapped into that theme again by proposing targeted tax cuts.

A moral case for reducing the tax-burden on the hardest-pressed families has to be presented along with the matching half of the political argument, which is spending. Part of the "decontamination" operation on our brand has been to move us to a position where Tony & Gordon can't shout "Look over there - Tories are setting fire to schools'n'ospitals!!" We need to ensure that our approach of "sharing the proceeds of growth" is followed consistently in policy announcements on taxation, and we're prepared thoroughly for any "incoming" from the opposition.

By the way, Paul, at least one of your suggestions is already on the agenda - during his Radio 4 phone-in the other day, Cameron stated that he is in favour of a transferrable tax allowance for parents. I also agree with you that there are huge issues around the "benefits trap".

With the working families tax credit, for example, I distinctly remember a work colleague of mine a couple of years ago being concerned that a hard-earned promotion might actually leave him worse off. There's alot to be said for Osborne's approach to taxation, in shifting the burden of taxation from the good things such as hard work and strong families, and on to the "bad", such as businesses that pollute and activities that emit too much carbon.

Alex Forsyth: The fact that this rag is praising its fellow-traveller Cameron will surprise nobody.

Regardless of your views on the Economist's journalism, Alex, which part of the quote from it do you actually think are untrue?

[Dave Bartlett]

"a PC centre-left journal"
The Economist?

[Dave Bartlett]

Paul Oakley said:

Here's some ideas: raise the personal allowance to £10K to destroy the benefits trap

Cracking idea. Osbourne was making noises about simplifying the tax laws, lets hope he comes up with something along those lines.

[Paul Oakley]

Richard - I agree that Labour will whine that we want to destroy the welfare state. The way to tackle it is this. In the 80s people were (rightly)concerned about 3 million unemployed. Under Labour, we have about 3 1/2 million unemployed when you factor in the huge growth of the numbers on incapacity benefit. It's time for us to start moaning about that and to argue that destroying the benefits trap will get people back to work.

[Richard Carey]

It's time for us to start moaning about that and to argue that destroying the benefits trap will get people back to work.

I don't agree that in your words we should be "moaning" at all - I think there is a real opportunity to put forward a positive vision that helps people who want to help themselves.

"If you want to work hard, improve your lot and get on in life, whatever your circumstances, Conservatives will always make sure that your family is the first to benefit from it."

I certainly don't have all the policy tools worked out to make this happen, especially since I am sure that Brown's conflation of the tax and benefits system has laid some complex bear traps for such an aim.

I am convinced, though, that support for working families is a more attractive and more thoughtful policy, and we need to be a little bit clever politically about how we go about dismantling Brown's client state.

[UKIP@HOME]

http://e-ukip-home.blogspot.com/

Ukip faces legal action over donations
By Brendan Carlin, Political Correspondent
Last Updated: 9:06pm GMT 22/02/2007
The UK Independence Party faces a crippling demand from election watchdogs to forfeit over £360,000 of donations, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.
The Electoral Commission is due to announce tomorrow that it is launching legal action to recover 68 separate donations made to the anti-Brussels party by one of its main backers.
Mr Bown made donations to Ukip between Dec 2004 and Jan 2006
But election watchdogs have apparently discovered that Mr Bown, who also runs a bath-robe company, was not on the electoral register during that period.
Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, individual donations are invalid if the donor is not registered as a UK voter when the money is given.
In a letter sent to Bruce Lawson, the Ukip treasurer, the commission confirmed that it “will be proceeding to apply to court for the forfeiture of £363,697 in respect of 68 donations from Mr Bown made during the period December 2004 to January 2006”.

A separate donation of £4,000 from a company called Nightech Ltd in May 2005 is also being pursued.
Under the law, any forfeited donations go to the Treasury and are not returned to the donor in question.
The threat has stunned Ukip leadership which admitted that forfeiting a third of a million pounds would effectively leave the party penniless.
John Whittaker, the party chairman, said: “Have we got this sort of money? Of course, we haven’t.”
He and Nigel Farage, the party leader, are both furious at what they say is over-reaction for what is a “simple clerical error”.
Mr Farage, who said Ukip annual income was only about £250,000, said: “I would have expected a rap on the knuckles.”
Ukip said that Mr Bown, one of the party’s main donors, was currently away on holiday and was not contactable.
But Mr Whittaker said that the donor was on the electoral register at his Kent address before the period in question and has been since January 2006.
“Mr Bown was entitled to be on the electoral register throughout the period in question, and has been a permanent resident and taxpayer in the UK all his working life.
“I don’t believe the law was designed to catch out this sort of donor; it was intended to prevent dodgy overseas money being given to UK political parties.
“The UK Independence Party regrets this error.
“However, we point out that there was obviously no intent to breach or evade Section 54 of the Act.”
The party chairman said the Electoral Commission’s decision to “confiscate this money based on nothing more than an honest mistake is astonishing.”
A commission spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
But The Daily Telegraph understands that Ukip will fight the case in court, partly because it stands to lose so much money if the donations are forfeited.

[Richard Carey]

Ukip faces legal action over donations

I note that the "premier" UKIP blog is tonight promoting the idea of overseas prisons. (Well, everyone needs to read something for a good laugh, right?) This might be a coincidence, or they might just be trying to get dear old Nigel as far away as possible if the worst happens...

And it would definitely resolve the headline question on this thread, wouldn't it - mounting a strong GOTV operation vs. worrying about bankrupt party...

[cleo]

More people will be encouraged to vote if politicians develop programmes to deal with issues that they care about. I believe that the environment is the biggest issue we face along with improving education and healthcare for all and increasing community involvement and action.

[Matt Davis]

If it was our policies that lost us the last three elections then how come Lord Ashcroft's extensive private polling for the Party clearly demonstrated that the Voters liked those policies but not when they came from the Conservatives? Patently the policies were fine it was the party itself that they didn't want to vote for.

So if it is actually the case that Project Cameron is about decontaminating the brand so that those popular conservative (with a small c) policies can be put to a newly open minded electorate then I greatly look forward to seeing most of those self same popular right of centre policies in our final election manifesto. Even more do I look forward to working on the doorstep with both a party and policies that I and the electorate can support and believe in.

[Richard Carey]

Matt,

I can see where you're coming from in your post, but there are a couple of points there that deserve further discussion.

Firstly, I should say that I am an avid supporter of the conclusions of the Ashcroft polling published in his pamphlet "Smell the Coffee". However, there are diferent ways of applying those conclusions.

Patently the policies were fine it was the party itself that they didn't want to vote for.

The interesting thing about polling is that you tend to get the answers to the questions that you ask. By this I don't disparage the results, but suggest that you can't deny some linkage here. Don't the issues that we choose to talk most about as a party and the way that we try to frame the debate about those issues help define our brand more strongly than any photo-op?

We're genuinely changing as a party. Don't you agree that to suggest that we only need to re-brand in some superficial way and then say the very same things over again would be to insult the intelligence of the electorate? I'm pleased that we're not doing that.

[Matt Wright]

Agree with DavidTPB, on the doors canvassing we are seeing a lot more switchers, often straight from Lab to Cons, than in last 3 elections. There is a very small minority of supporters who are not sure about DC ("not sure" rather than atagnonistically "against") but the net gain far exceeds this. The strategy is broadly correct but the more gritty and practical messages of late are helping to firm up a Cameron led Conservative party,

Matt

[Yet Another Anon]

If UKIP closes down the councillors and MEP's and supporters of UKIP will still be there, they may well simply move over to Veritas or the Popular Alliance, it may simply narrow down the number of parties campaigning for the end of the EU and unite that vote more - UKIP exists because many people have given up on the 3 main parties. UKIP's bankruptcy would probably end Nigel Farage's embryonic political career, but something would take it's place.

[TomTom]

Here's some ideas: raise the personal allowance to £10K to destroy the benefits trap

That could only be funded if you abolish all tax allowances for higher rate taxpayers......say pension relief and CGT relief. It is after all £122 billion in Income Tax and £80 billion in NIC you are speaking of.....and this policy is effectively giving a Minimum Guaranteed Income of £10.000 pa since that's how the system works.

The curret threshold is set just above the State Pension level for a reason

[Dave Bartlett]

That could only be funded if you abolish all tax allowances for higher rate taxpayers......say pension relief and CGT relief.

Are you sure about that? This would be replacing a very complex tax credits scheme.

[Dave Bartlett]

Anthony KIng analysing the Telegraph/YouGov poll in Today's Telegraph says:

The good news for Mr Cameron is that the BNP and Ukip are most unlikely to gain any Westminster seats at the next election. The most they can hope to do is deprive the Conservatives of, at most, half a dozen seats. The new-look Conservatives stand to gain far more seats from the Liberal Democrats many of whose 62 seats are highly vulnerable to the Tories.

[Alex Forsyth]

"a PC centre-left journal" The Economist?

Oh sorry Dave.

You not only clearly don't read 'The Economist' for a living - that's presumably down to one of your other CCHQ colleagues - you obviously know nothing about the magazine whatsoever.

Despite its capitalistic-sounding title, 'The Economist' has been an openly left-of-centre publication for many years, long before Cameron was ever heard of.

One thing we can't blame him for.

[Alex Forsyth]

The good news for Mr Cameron is that the BNP and Ukip are most unlikely to gain any Westminster seats at the next election.

I generally have a lot of time for Prof. King but this news is akin to an "exclusive" revealing that the Chief Rabbi is Jewish.

Neither BNP or UKIP will ever gain a seat at Westminster until PR is introduced.

[Alex Forsyth]

Regardless of your views on the Economist's journalism, Alex, which part of the quote from it do you actually think are untrue?

In particular:

Mr Cameron's strength is that despite his privileged background he brims with empathy.

“Empathy” = hypocritical grandstanding.

In any case do these fawning sycophants imagine that we are so stupid as to believe that Cameron writes his own speeches? The only thing he is known for certain to have written himself is the “far right” , “banging on” etc Tory manifesto for the last General Election

[TomTom]

Wasn't The Economist set up to attack the Corn Laws ? and aren't some of its current staff Old Etonians ? It certainly is far removed from the world of most Britons in its views - I believe even the self-effacing Lord Lispsey of 'unelected is best' fame is from The Economist

[Alex Forsyth]

The Economists most appalling recent campaign was the one it staged against the Berlusconi government in Italy.

From the point of view of British Conservatives Berlusconi had a number of redeeming features. Of course his corruption was not among them, but that's endemic in Italian politics. It goes with the territory.

However, for a British publication to attempt to involve itself in the internal politics of a friendly foreign country was utterly disgraceful

[Adam]

There is corruption and there is corruption.

Passing laws specifically designed to get you off the charges in your own impending court cases shoud be beyond the pale.

That you seem to think the behaviour is excusable makes me believe that you Mr Forsyth are the disgraceful one.

[Yet Another Anon]

Neither BNP or UKIP will ever gain a seat at Westminster until PR is introduced.
People have similarily disparaged other parties that have gone on to win seats either locally or nationally, I certainly think UKIP can win seats at a parliamentary level under the current system and indeed people in the past didn't believe Labour would ever win, similar things had been said about the SNP and DUP. The BNP have a lot of changing to do before they could be considered any kind of major electoral prospect - the candidates and party organisation is inept and unimaginative beyond belief, if they really abandoned a racist position as a party and adopted some sensible economic policies then they might be able to establish themselves at some point in the future as a credible electoral force, it seems unlikely though - especially if UKIP move towards taking a tougher line on crime and punishment, and with generally broader parties such as the Popular Alliance that have more considered policies are more likely to get the breadth of appeal to make the breakthrough at a national level.

[Matt Davis]

Richard Carey I think that we can agree to differ on this because I do take the Smell The Coffee conclusions at face value and don't believe that it would insult the intelligence of the electorate to offer them broadly the policies that they have already said they liked along with new positive ideas on the Environment and the Family.

For me though the problem with what you have said is that you say that you are glad we are not doing that (what I hoped for) when in fact we don't yet know at all what we are doing on a policy level and probably won't for some time yet. You are obviously hopeful of a certain policy direction and so am I, but neither of us actually know what the final direction is going to be yet and, if CCHQ are to be believed, then neither does our leadership.

[Geoff]

Adam, I believe that the still-ongoing and very interesting part of that scandal is the husband of Tessa Mills MP getting caught up in Italian corruption, money laundering and tax fraud investigations.

Berlusconi maybe, but it's going to be fun to see the spouse of a UK Secretary of State in an Italian dock.

[Richard Carey]

I don't believe that it would insult the intelligence of the electorate to offer them broadly the policies that they have already said they liked along with new positive ideas on the Environment and the Family.

Thanks, Matt - I'm happy to agree to differ if you like, but I do think that you've misunderstood my post. I actually think that Tim's "and theory" of politics holds a large part of the answer to this - as an alternative government we've got to credibly tackle a wide range of issues. And as per my post earlier in the thread on tax and benefits reform, these can and should be sold in a positive optimistic way - see my comments to a fellow contributor suggesting that benefits is a subject we "should be moaning about".

My point was that it's not enough to try to look different, we have to be different, and that means being comfortable talking about different things. I suspect that on this we might actually agree more than we think!

[Alex Forsyth]

(Adam) - There is corruption and there is corruption.

Passing laws specifically designed to get you off the charges in your own impending court cases shoud be beyond the pale.

That you seem to think the behaviour is excusable makes me believe that you Mr Forsyth are the disgraceful one.

No in Italy there's only corruption.

I suppose you could say Signor Andreotti went one further than most when he ordered the assassination of a political opponent - and he's still a major figure in Italian politics.

How they run things over there is their business. It has nothing to do with you, Adam, and certainly nothing to do with "The Economist" which chose to campaign blatently in support of the left-wing crooks against the right-wing crooks.

Of course the idea of a pack of ignorant English journalists attempting to gatecrash some other country's political affairs was so utterly risible that the pink rag simply managed to make itself look extremely stupid.

Again.