Dr Frank Luntz, the celebrity pollster who "created Cameron", will paint a depressing picture of voters' attitudes to politicians on Newsnight tonight:
"Listening to the British electorate talk about politics is like listening to parents on a football pitch gripe about the referee. The last time I heard such discontent, frustration and genuine hostility to political leaders was in May 1997 - and we all know what happened next."
Sceptics will take his findings with a pinch of salt - his pool of opinion consisted of just 25 people in Birmingham - but his advice to David Cameron seems wise:
"After a decade of "soundbite culture", voters are more savvy and more wary of anybody who seems too good to be true. Cameron's policy pronouncements continue to prove that he is not a return to the "old Tories" of the 1980s. His challenge - not to be seen as a return to Tony Blair. For him, more audio and less visual would be a wise approach."
Luntz found that perceived PR stunts such as holding his newborn had "a poisonous impact" on the panel's perception of Cameron. They were most positive about him when talking about non-traditional Tory issues such as "individuality in education" and even stability before tax cuts. There's an obvious problem with a Tory leader talking about un-Tory policies, however:
"The Tory leader has been testing the loyalty of some die-hard Conservatives with his new stance on Europe (join in to shape the debate, he says), his tougher approach to business, his wooing of public servants and the softer social justice tones embodied in what has come to be termed his "hug-a-hoody" proposals. But what the refuseniks within the party also realise is that thanks to Mr Cameron's stewardship, the party is beginning to look - for the first time in more than a decade - like it has a realistic chance of forming a government."
There will be a largely positive atmosphere at Spring Forum this weekend, but the patience of members will have to be rewarded with some solid, principled policies in the coming months.
Deputy Editor
Mr Cameron
Does this advice ring a bell???
Posted by: Steve | March 16, 2007 at 09:46
But the Cameron Party is now a silent film... And like the silent stars of the 1920s, Dave just isn't up to making the transition to sound. Audio would be no use, as he has nothing substantial to say. He IS a soundbite.
Posted by: Tam Large | March 16, 2007 at 09:53
"thanks to Mr Cameron's stewardship, the party is beginning to look - for the first time in more than a decade - like it has a realistic chance of forming a government."
Excellent. That seems a good reward for the patience of party memebers.
Posted by: DavidDPB | March 16, 2007 at 10:46
Some interesting comments on this subject on politicalbetting and Guido. If they are right and it does look credible the UKIP trolls and the more extreme rightwingers who post on this sight will be in despair.
Posted by: malcolm | March 16, 2007 at 11:04
Sorry can't spell site!
Posted by: malcolm | March 16, 2007 at 11:05
"thanks to Mr Cameron's stewardship, the party is beginning to look - for the first time in more than a decade - like it has a realistic chance of forming a government."
Nothing to with the grotesque failures, not to mention possible imprisonment, of the present govt, then.
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the last person left in the country who knows what a post hoc fallacy is.
Let me spell it out: the fact that the Conservatives have enjoyed a rise in the polls under DC's leadership doesn't at all mean that it's *due* to that leadership. Nor is there any reason to believe that it'll be sustained once some solid policies appear and once the imminence of a general election focuses the minds of the left-liberal media.
Furthermore, as a firm member of that tendency routinely ridiculed as unrealistic, can I point out that even winning an election is not enough; you are then supposed to do stuff. I've heard nothing from the current leadership that I would actually vote for to happen. Just to say "You must vote Tory because otherwise it's Labour back again" is moral blackmail, and incidentally indicates what even solidly loyal supporters really think of the current positions.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | March 16, 2007 at 12:30
what is it with you lot and a fetish about "UKIP trolls"?
Posted by: Toryboy | March 16, 2007 at 12:50
what is it with you lot and a fetish about "UKIP trolls"?
Just the Camerloons are getting tense.
Posted by: jorgen | March 16, 2007 at 14:10
Alex - couldn't agree more, the polls reflect 10 years of inept government not one year of "Dave". However, although I don't think DC is the right man, he is lucky that he's in the right position at the right time and sometimes it's better to be lucky than talented......hate to think what state the country will be in though!
Posted by: Shugmeister | March 16, 2007 at 14:22
In 2004 we had 8 years of inept government and Labour only got 35.3% of the votes (a figure that usually loses power) but only the core 32% (up a whole 0.6% from 2001) considered voting (inept) Tory. The fact 38-40% do now is down to Cameron.
I think Cameron is stronger when he speaks than in photo-ops. Perhaps the webcameron stuff is useful in certain segments of potential voters but we need more talk, more action in terms of explaing vision and (as we will hopefully get over next few months) more detail on policies.
Posted by: Ted | March 16, 2007 at 14:41
Who's got a fetish about UKIP trolls Toryboy? I certainly haven't. They are a very minor irritant on this blog as I suppoese they are in real life.
Posted by: malcolm | March 16, 2007 at 14:49
The last paragraph about sums it up.
DC can curry all the favour he wants, but its fleeting, so he had better not alienate the core support.
Most of the country wants NuLab out, but cannot make its mind up as to whom to have as a replacement.
Principled opposition, good policy putting earnings in pockets and a stronger anti-EU line. "In Europe but not ruled by Europe", is empty rhetoric and everyone knows it. Its bugger Europe and lets get out.
Posted by: George Hinton | March 16, 2007 at 15:06
The problem is that there doesn't seem to be anyone else in the new Tory party apart from Cameron. When Blair became leader in 1994, he had people like Straw, Campbell, Brown, Mandelson and Philip Gould working behind the scenes to take the party into government.
I think the paucity of women in the Tory parliamentary party also makes things more difficult. I think there are only about 5 or 6 female Tory MPs under 50 years of age, which is not very encouraging when one realises that the majority of the electorate are women, and the majority of those female voters are under 50.
Posted by: Andy Stidwill | March 16, 2007 at 15:13
A stronger Anti-EU line would not only be madness because it would start all the old arguments about Europe yet again but the EU will make no differance at all to the result of the next election because the EU just isn`t an issue with people in fact if you mention the subject to most people you will send them to sleep!
Posted by: Jack Stone | March 16, 2007 at 16:27
Can someone plant this Frank Luntz fraud in a deep hole. I am fed up of Americans trying to tell us what people here think
Posted by: TomTom | March 16, 2007 at 17:27
I think Cameron always comes over well when speaking. The trouble is few of the rest of the party leadership do. But the main problem seems to me that the leadership is regressing to the old post Thatcher and pre Cameron approach where speaking to electors and even part members is a chore to be dealt with between sherry parties.
Two recent cases; it was obvious that Labour, with support from Murdoch, was making an issue of the vote on the probation service but there was no explanation of why Tories voted against it. Also the "contraversial" green air poposals were inviting come backs but there was no attempt to cope with the come backs, just the poor press release.
Posted by: David Sergeant | March 16, 2007 at 18:53
Luntz is using the BBC to talk up Cameron because he wants the party's money. Money is all that interests him. The party should be very wary of this man. He proposes high priced contracts then ships the work to the high-turnover staff in his DC office, cutting costs to the bone, and leaving his time free to go after more business.
Right now he's under pressure from Omnicom, to whom he has sold his business, because his small New York office makes no money. He'll ask for 10s of thousands for single focus groups or opinion surveys then contract out to the cheapest vendors while even office interns will be working on your over-priced opinion research product.
Posted by: DC observer | March 19, 2007 at 00:30