Tory members embrace Cameron's family agenda but reject the green tax plans

ConservativeHome.com has just completed its March survey of Conservative Party members.  1,320 Tory members took part in an online survey on Wednesday 14th and Thursday 15th March.  The latest results are summarised below.  More detailed posts will follow over the next few days.

70% of Tory members are satisfied with David Cameron (29% "very") and 29% are dissatisfied (13% "very").

77% expect David Cameron to be Prime Minister after the next General Election.

69% say that the Conservative Party is on the right course but 25% believe that it is on the wrong track.

David Davis is the most popular member of the shadow cabinet.

Party members are less than impressed with this week's Conservative Party consultation on green taxation.  54% think that climate change should be tackled through technology rather than taxation.  48% think green taxes within Britain are "pointless" because "any reduction in British emissions will be quickly overtaken by the industrial activity of fast-growing countries like India and China."  Only 31% of members agreed with the following statement of Tory policy; "Higher taxation of air travel, as long as it is offset by lower taxes on businesses and families, is essential if we are to tackle the problem of climate change."

Party members are much more likely to support David Cameron's family policy.  86% agree that family breakdown is a leading cause of failure at school, juvenile offending and unhappiness.  72% agree with the proposal for a married couples' tax allowance.

41% believe that the House of Lords should stay as it is.  38% believe that it should be fully or largely democratic.  10% support a fully-appointed Upper House.

By a thin margin - 48% to 43% - members believe that David Cameron was wrong to force Patrick Mercer's resignation.

Comments

[malcolm]

Must say I'm suprised by some of these results. We seem completely split on the House Of Lords in particular. I hope not an omen for the future.

[TomTOm]

By a thin margin - 48% to 43%

That is "thin" - well it suggests ICM, MORI, etc on voting intentions are "wafer-thin" as is the toss-up between an appointed versus elected Upper House

In political polling terms to start speaking of 5% as "thin margin" shows chutzpah

[Mark Fulford]

54% think that climate change should be tackled through technology rather than taxation.

And the incentive to develop the technology is... that's right, taxation.

[tory insider]

The questions this months survey on the issue of Green values, were very poorly writen. You should have questions that are less leading to get fair more reflective results.

[Ken Adams]

Yes to the last post
For instance the question on Global Warming only gave the option “I do not belive in Global Warming” I do, but am not convinced that humans have much effect I feel the question could have been posed differently.

[Dan Hassett]

TomTom - Less than 50% in a straight yes/no question suggests a tight margin. The same is clearly not true in a voting intentions survey, which has a myriad of options and no-one is likely to break the 50% barrier.

Moreover, in a self-selecting survey like that run by Conservative Home, the margin of error will be larger than that for a survey which uses carefully calculated quotas to select the people who answer the questions. 5% is probably within the margin of error, if fact.

[William Norton]

I would agree with the comments about the range of questions on the Green issues. I found it difficult to work out where to place my own view (a degree of warming is taking place; but not sure how long-term the trend will be and whether it is in fact a correction from an earlier period of below-average cold; not sure to what extent CO2 is relatively responsible; not convinced by the Stern review; not convinced by the Great Global Warming Swindle film; and any way think that a mixture of stick/carrots to improve energy efficiency and move away from oil dependence is a good idea no matter what is happening to the climate).

Can I have a category of my own?

[kingbongo]

The detail within the last MORI poll (on PoliticalBetting.com) shows DC is undeniably on the right track, winning new voters over from LAB and LimpDum and losing how many? 1% to the Greens. DC is a leader in control of his party and the direction of travel. The green policy discussion was leaked and not handled as well as it might have been.

The membership will be lukewarm about some proposals but that's because policy needs to appeal to people outside the activist base.

Sean Fear's excellent article on PB.com shows just how much trouble the socialists are in - let's hope we can capitalise on it in May.

[Will]

William Norton - I would be in your category as well.

[Steve]

He has done enough already in 'image building'. When Labour implode/move left where are he middle ground voters going to go? thats right they will be heading in our direction looking for a sensible option. They have seen NuLab fail on every level and they want to see a new direction.

We are in danger of "over imaging' in the public eye. If we move too much further it will look weak, after all 12% points clear doesnt normally indicate a party in need of chasing the marginal mid ground vote if it really upsets the right. It would make more sense to consolidate here before deciding if a further lurch left is actually required to achieve objectives, better to keep something in reserve.

[Richard]

"And the incentive to develop the technology is... that's right, taxation."

I was under the impression firms were incentivised by profit. If global warming is going to require technological change I'm sure there are plenty of savvy entrepreneurs ready to take advantage. There was an article in the Economist recently pointing out the decline in price of non-fossil fuels such as solar power due to companies anticipating a rise in consumer demand.

[Steve]

William Norton - I agree, but the born again greens are difficult to stomach sometimes.
If its so urgent why are we not building more sea defences?

[Tom Greeves]

The House of Lords doesn't have to be elected OR appointed. Indeed, I believe it should be neither:

http://bigtommygspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/03/lord-greeves-of-barford.html

[IRJMilne]

On the Lords, I said it should go back to pre-Blair, when it worked perfectly well. Did anyone else?

On green taxes; I don't believe the air tax is necessary to stop global warming so I couldn't say I did think that; but it might be helpful. In any case, I'm in favour of that tax because it's as good a way as most to raise some tax revenue. Use the money raised to cut some VAT on some things or something. It makes sense electorally and I admit to being biased because I don't go on foreign holidays or own a second house here or anywhere else.

[Sean Fear]

I requested a purely hereditary House of Lords. Did anyone else?

[601]

"I requested a purely hereditary House of Lords. Did anyone else?" LOL

I agree with taxing frequent fliers but what about those who might have saved up for years to visit their family in say India or Australia will they be able to afford it as these flights are long haul?

[Ted]

Steve,
I agree we should be building sea defences. It seems to have become a matter of faith in the Government, National Trust & Local Authorities that its best to "let nature take its course" (actually its "we don't want to pay"). In this policy many enviromentalists (RSPB for example) support them. Same people are "concerned" about climate change.
Joined up Government and joined up thinking, not.

While being a bit more convinced on climate change than Mr Norton I also found choices forced me into position I didn't quite agree with - but that's politics isn't it, you have to choose a party who's policies & philosophy are closest to yours, often though these may be more definite than your view.

[HF]

I think it is wrong to claim these results as "tory members". They are just the results of people who have been on this site.

[A H Matlock]

Sean, My suggestion was that the reforms passed in 1999 should be scrapped and the hereditaries reinstated. An entirely hereditary House of Lords would eliminate luminaries such as Mrs Thatcher, but I would sooner your suggestion than allowing Labour to stuff it with apparatchiks or to allow the Liberals in with some form of rigged proportional voting.

[Richard Tyndall]

HF,

when you answer the questions each month the last one is always whether you are a Tory Party member, supporter or member of another party.

As such I presume that when they draw up the resaults and put them on the site as they have done they are only using the numbers garnered from those who said they were members. I would be interested to see what the results were from 'supporters' and none supporters as well as members.

Am I correct in this assumption Editor?

[Richard]

"I requested a purely hereditary House of Lords. Did anyone else?"

Yup. Although I did add the exception that some life peers could be appointed where they had a particular expertise (and where the hereditaries were lacking in that particular area).

[Steve]

It all comes down to understanding the electorate I suppose. Climate change is simply NOT the biggest issue for the vast majority of the population. Of course it’s serious, if we can solve the problem then fair enough, but the reality is that we cannot identify the risks, the problem or the solution. Ordinary people are therefore more concerned with their immediate problems such as crippling taxation, welfare trap, social tensions caused by a generation of kids stripped of ambition, cant get their kids into a good school, government inspired racial tensions, pressure on local services and the fact they cant get a doctor or a dentist and not that someone in Chelsea or Richmond is driving a 4x4.

Equally it is a highly dangerous tactic to be seen to have a more credible/extreme policy on something that comes about 10th on most peoples list of priorities. Then it looks like political grandstanding to paper over the failings elsewhere. The public are simply not 'impressed' when the certain climate change disaster is promoted by Al Gore, Clinton, Blair, Schwarzenegger etc they carry zero credibility.......that is the risk Cameron runs. He has hijacked the debate and done well, no need to get cast together with those mentioned as it will not win votes.

[Alan Douglas]

I too asked for a pre-Blair House of Lords - it was not broken, why fix it ? Though "fixing it" seems to have been NuLab's intention !

I am a supporter but not a member.

[Nick Gulliford]

Your headline includes "Tory members embrace Cameron's family agenda", but no one has commented on it. Anyway, I am pleased. Thanks for unearthing that information.

A clause for publishing a Social Capital Index should be added to the Statistics and Registration Services Bill [about to go to the House of Lords]. There is already a clause [19] to provide for the Retail Price Index.

The clause would be:

[20] Social capital index
(1) The Board must under section 18
(a) compile and maintain a social capital index by neighbourhood, and
(b) publish it every year, together with
(c) statistics and an index for social and domestic cohesion.

The national marriage and divorce statistics are widely reported. If local statistics and an index of social and domestic cohesion by neighbourhood are published, local community and faith leaders, school governors, GP's and health visitors and parish/district/county councillors would be able to see whether their locality is moving up or down the social capital index. They would be better informed and more able to influence their local authority's policy for social and domestic cohesion, including such issues as the support and education programmes to be provided and promoted through access points such as register offices. It would be much easier to evaluate which policies for social and domestic cohesion and which education programmes are the most effective in bringing about improvements in social capital.

[Nick Paget-Brown]

We should spend much more time thinking about what it is we want the House of Lords to do. Only when we are agreed on this should we focus on its composition.

The present chamber, like its predecessor, is doing a good job despite the permanent "Sword of Damocles" hanging over it and the determination of the present Government to damage or undermine any institution which threatens its own executive power. It revises and enhances legislation but does not initiate it. It has limited but effective powers of delay. When a Government, such as the present one, seeks to give the State more control at the expense of the individual, the Lords have proved strong, bold and effective in standing up for the power of the individual over the state. It represents faith, the law, science and tradition - all anathema to a controlling Government.

Any reform needs to preserve the Lords independence of action and to insist that it is not dominated by party machines designing lists, rewarding donors or removing dead-wood. It needs to ensure that expertise and experience are respected. An elected House will finish off cross-benchers and reward party loyalists. It will seek to lock swords with the House of Commons and muddy the accountability of that House. As the legislature gets deadlocked or argues about the respective powers of each chamber, a Government such as the present one will rub its hands with pleasure and get on with its centralising agenda.

The House should have a formal brief to protect individual freedoms and to highlight all instances where new legislation threaten these. (All legislation to be subject to a "Loss of Freedom Impact Assessment"). The power of appointment needs to be given to a genuinely independent body. The number of peers appointed in any one year should be limited by law, the party leaders should be given very limited powers to nominate. The Lords itself could have the right to nominate.

Once everyone is clear that the Lords is there to protect the freedom of the individual against the powers of over-mighty Governments, it will become obvious that the composition needs to reflect this requirement above everything else. If it is then decided that an elected element is needed, perhaps it should be a requirement that no elected Lord should have been a member of a political party for at least 15 years.

Nick Paget-Brown

[Editor]

Excellent post Nick - thank you.

[David DPB]

Fantastic illustration of the intricacies of language. Compare and contrast "...but 25%" and "..only 31%".