ICM shows Tories down to 34%

A new ICM poll in tomorrow's Guardian suggests that the Tory lead is down to 2%. 

All I will say at this point is what I said on 15th May:

"It will be sometime after the autumn's party conference season before we can fully assess the impact of Gordon Brown on the political landscape.  Only then will opinion polls be free of the distortive effect of the Labour leadership election and voters will have started to get the measure of a Gordon Brown premiership."

The hypothetical Tory lead widens to 8% when Brown is named as Labour leader and Cameron as Conservative leader.

More in the morning.

Comments

[Curly]

The needless grammar school row will not help either, and for once I fear that Nick Robinson may well have a point.

Put me down as being in Maggie's aspirational class.

(Warning - link to BBC.)

[Andrew Lilico]

There's nothing to see or infer here. Neither in the overall numbers nor in the Cameron vs Brown numbers - all these latter data tell us is that people are bad at answering hypothetical questions.

Here's an illustration of how hopeless people are at hypothetical questions: I recall a few weeks back an opinion poll result that 57% of the public would support sending our troops abroad to prevent an ongoing genocide. For some absurd reason the press tried to spin this as "Britons still have stomach for the fight", when in fact the horrifying result was that 43% of people did not think they would support sending troops abroad to prevent an *ongoing* genocide! 43%!!! No way on earth would 43% of people not support that, if it came to it!! But because it was a hypothetical question, they had no idea.

Questions about a hypothetical Brown vs Cameron are just as uninformative. Let's see Brown in action. He'll be tough, clever, resourceful, experienced, formidable, battle-hardened, and driven by a specific policy agenda - everything we aren't sure our own guys have. It'll be time to find out what they're really made of. I hope they come out on top...

[Alan S]

Cameron is a politician, a bureaucrat, a PR man.

He is not a believer in anything.

That is why his opinion poll standing is shallow.

[Traditional Tory]

Oh dear.

.

Do you know what that little speck above is?

It's the smallest violin in the world, and it's playing for Dave.

And if he keeps his 2% lead for the next ten minutes there might even be time for an encore for the Camerloonies.

Clap, clap, clap.

[Afleitch]

It's interesting you lot only come out and whine when our lead is small, go into hiding when it's large and never came out at all in all those years we were behind. Pity.

[Alexander Drake]

Traditional Tory, a question for you.

If at the next General Election, Conservative candidates are branded as "David Cameron for PM" on the ballot paper in the same way the SNP did with its candidates at the last Holyrood election, how will you cope? It obviously worked for the SNP, and judging by these Brown-Cameron polling questions it may well work for Cameron to some extent.

I'm sure we can arrange a counsellor for you if you find this hard to cope with. There are lots of stages of grieving you know.

[CDM]

To be honest, I don't really see why papers are commissioning polls until Brown takes over. Even then, we won't really have an idea of where we stand at least until the party conferences, if not later.

[Alexander Drake]

Alan S, if we take the poll above, it's not Cameron's standing that is shallow, it's the Conservative Party's!

[Matt Wright]

A simple message. Those, like "Traditional Tory" (suspect he's had several pseudonyms) who seem to delight in any negative message for the Conservatives and any way of pulling DC down, are they in fact just ensuring Labour stay in power forever? Things have moved on, we have to sensibly move with the times or die.

Matt

[Richard Carey]

If at the next General Election, Conservative candidates are branded as "David Cameron for PM"

Alexander, in the 3rd May elections we stood a paper candidate in a strong Liberal Party seat with the description "David Cameron's Conservatives". Anecdotally backing up your observations, she out-polled the Labour candidate by miles, coming in a pretty credible second place!

[Alexander Drake]

Richard, I wonder how we'd go at the polls if candidates put "Traditional Tory" as their brand next to their name, instead of "David Cameron for PM".

Any thoughts you'd like to add Traditional Tory? Waiting for baited breath as ever.

[Peter]

Mrs Thatcher once said that if you walk in the middle of the road you will get run over.
Cameron's vision of a Blue Labour party (or Butskillism as it was known in the '50s and '60s ) will have the same disasterous effect on the country and the Tory party.
I have come to the conclusion that Cameron is vacuous, shallow, ignorantly opiniated, and ,when challenged, petulant and stubborn. These are the characteristics of a weak character. The man is out of his depth and needs to be replaced as our Leader. He has declared war on the aspirational working and middle classes by denying them the best free education the state can provide for academically bright children ( ie: grammar schools). He refuses to put money back into people's pockets through massive tax cuts although Labour has increased the average family's tax burden by £4000 per annum. He refuses to talk about the appalling effect uncontrolled immigration is having on local communities, housing, and social services ( our "international" health service in particular).
He refuses to talk of the massive increase in street crime due to immigrant gangs and the mafia style prostitution /people traffiking rackets controlled by East Europeans.
The country is breaking down and all he talks about is the pseudo science of man- made global warming,which has been completely rebutted by those environmental scientists who are not compromised by being on a government gravy train of research fellowships etc.. They have clearly proved that the culprit is the sun,
which is an inconvenient truth for any politician who wants to use global warming as an excuse to tax us further and deprive third world countries of any chance to develop.
Taxing 4x4s and putting windmills on one's chimney pot is Cameron's answer to all our problems. Try selling this "answer" to the frightened, and demoralised families on a sink estate, surrounded by drug addicts, and criminal gangs in police no go areas.
Cameron is dangerous and his views are largely an obscene irrelevance to what the Tory party should be talking about if we are ever to govern this country again. Can no -one come forward and challenge this oaf and his coterie of juvenile poseurs?
It is extraordinary that Cameron appears to want his traditional core supporters to vote UKIP. They did this at the last election in Kent and deprived the Tories of about 4 seats. Maybe the fall in Tory support to 34% will bring home to Cameron that many Tories don't like him or his policies, and he will be lucky to survive another year if the fall continues .

[Scotty]

"Cameron is dangerous and his views are largely an obscene irrelevance to what the Tory party should be talking about if we are ever to govern this country again."
"Maybe the fall in Tory support to 34% will bring home to Cameron that many Tories don't like him or his policies, and he will be lucky to survive another year if the fall continues."
Peter, looking at the details of this poll shows us David Cameron is even more popular than the Conservative party and therefore a huge asset. It also points to the fact that he is retaining more of his core vote than Gordon Brown manages.
Take a deep breath and go and read a warts and all biography of Mrs Thatcher and her rise to power as Conservative leader and our first female PM, it is a fascinating story and don't forget to include her time as education secretary.

[matt wright]

Peter, your opinions are a gross exaggeration and distortion. My direct experience of the general election camapigns and results in 2001 and 2005 and the assembly election results in 2003 and 2007 and the local election campaign and results in 2004 clearly indicate that most voters did not want old fashioned right wing solutions but rather more forward-looking centrist and positive messages. The best way of judging this is to get out on many hundreds of ordinary peoples doors and listen,

Matt

[Praguetory]

Rather than rebuilding the brand, Cameron appears to be rubbishing it - now wonder the party is becoming less popular in the polls. Local election results show that Conservatives are not an electoral problem. So can Mr Cameron please start spending more time attacking our dreadful government rather than his party's natural supporters. He's starting to remind me of a coward who picks on his friends rather than his enemies because they'll be more forgiving.

[TomTom]

He's starting to remind me of a coward who picks on his friends rather than his enemies because they'll be more forgiving.

I think he has confused the word "party" with one where he gets to invite the guests

[YHN]

All I say is that bad numbers tell you no more or less than good numbers. You discard the current numbers as invalid for external factors but welcomed the polls when the same factors (new leader lots of news coverage etc) when they were in your favour.

In short, another lesson you have not learned is to respond and learn properly when things go against you. All you do is put your fingers in your ears and sing 'la la la everything's going to be alright' in your own bubble.

Ask any non-Tory activist why Cameron might not be doing so well right now. I bet they just might not struggle to understand the slip in the polls.

[Traditional Tory]

Traditional Tory, a question for you. If at the next General Election, Conservative candidates are branded as "David Cameron for PM" on the ballot paper in the same way the SNP did with its candidates at the last Holyrood election, how will you cope?

I'll split my sides all the way to the morning after Alex.

Support for Cameron is ultra-soft, largely a reaction to Blair's disgraceful absentee landlord stance. Polls have shown that the public believe Cameron is a political lightweight with no discernible principles.

Cameron has sold the pass on one fashionable PC obsession after another since his seizure of power. Many of these issues began as the sole province of the loony left. It's time for the pendulum to swing back to decent Conservatism and sound commonsense.

And that means that - well before the election disaster that otherwise awaits us - Cameron must go!

[TomTom]

Conservative candidates are branded as "David Cameron for PM" on the ballot paper

Alex Salmond is a cannier operator than Puffy.....and so many Conservative MPs would refuse to stand under such a death warrant logo that the situation would have been resolved before the election

Plus which it would probably be banned by the Electoral Commission

I would nevertheless urge the Conservative Party to attempt it and see if my assumptions are correct.....

[Alex Fisher]

This is very disappointing; back in the region of our 2005 result again and far from majority government territory. I hope it is a blip but in reality I doubt it; the education policy is almost certainly to blame. I don't see the public hankering for Brown.

[Felicity Mountjoy]

I am not worried about the poll at all. Once the electorate see David Cameron versus Gordon Brown our lead will widen again. This is a time for all good Conservatives to be loyal to the mission of modernisation.

[Vote Freedom]

15% for the other parties and as per usual they don't have no break downs. But considering the witterings coming from both Mrs Hodge and the tory left wing debate I am sure the BNP support is holding strong of around a million voters.

[Comstock]

Yes! Get in there big Gordy Brown! What an improvment on only a few months ago :)

Still might not quite be enough for a majority government but this is the mid term. Things can only get better from here on in.

[Graeme Archer]

I'm not clear either about the fuss about every poll that comes out. I don't ever quite get what we're supposed to do. What is it supposed to tell me that ICM's survey puts us down two points last month. How should I act differently as a result? If you (YOU!) decide that this 'proves' that Cameron must become more explicitly right-wing/appeal more to the Telegraph/aim to get folk like 'Vote Freedom' on board/force pinstripes on all of us and have us skip with joy to the next Cornerstone jamboree (I'm sure Cornerstone would hold 'jamborees', aren't you?) then my question is pretty basic, i.e. on what basis do you justify this? (clue: there isn't one, not a real one, you're just collecting ancillary evidence after the event to fallaciously add weight to your hypothesis) and, even if there was a good answer to the first question, then why do you not advise that Cameron do the REVERSE when there is a positive change in a poll?

[Comstock]

"15% for the other parties and as per usual they don't have no break downs"

Ah dear old Vote Freedom.....He don't need no education!

"I am sure the BNP support is holding strong of around a million voters."

:D Nice one.

That was a joke, right?

[Graeme Archer]

PS Oh, of course, I was forgetting, when the polls change positively, then the complaint becomes that the positive change isn't faster/higher etc. The solution to this is pinstripes and jamboreeing too. Funnily enough (this may well be 'ironically enough' but am still insufficiently confident, see earlier), the anti-Cameron response to opinion polls suffers from exactly the same criticism that is sometimes devastatingly used against the more apocalyptic climate change fanatics, that is, that since the response is the same regardless of the input (doom and destruction) then the inferential process is clearly deficient.

[TomTom]

Once the electorate see David Cameron versus Gordon Brown our lead will widen again.

That would be unusual.....Macmillan was the Chancellor of the Exchequer 1955-57 and sidelined Eden's Deputy RAB Butler to emerge as a very formidable replacement for a Prime Minister discredited after Suez and Gaitskell, a credible Labour right-winger, was expected to win the 1959 General Election.

If Brown focuses on substance and paints Cameron as flaky and a throwback to Blair, the Conservatives might have another leadership election before the LibDems

[Sally Roberts]

I wouldn't rejoice too soon, Comstock! I think what we are seeing here is the classic "bounce" which comes with a new leader (or leader elect in this case)! Give it a few months and I am sure we will see the Conservatives establishing a solid lead.

[Comstock]

That's a interesting point, TomTom. Do you think that Cameron would get the push if he failed to win the next election?

[Vote Freedom]

Cornstock,

I will bow to a mistake unlike politicians.. yes it is 13% for the others. a split between SNP,PLAID,GREEN,BNP and aFEW ukiper's

My assumpition on BNP support is based on past election results and this years results. 2004 euro elections in which all voters had an oppertunity to vote BNP 800,000 votes was gained by the BNP.

In this years elections the BNP gained over 340,000 votes not just my numbers but ones used by the cornerstone group, and that is in an election where not everyone had a chance to vote for them unlike the euro elections. But in Wales and Scotland the amount of votes was doubled on euro 2004 figures and also in areas of england where full slates was standing such as HarrogatemLeeds,Barnsley and Kirklees. So a figure of a million BNP voters is a conservative one and could easily be nearer 1.5 to 2 million.

Explains why we are getting the spin from both Labour and Conservative sources.

[William Norton]

Why doesn't the Editor just cut and paste the discussion from the last poll result where we went down?

And when the next poll comes out which shews us heading upwards again, probably next week, he can cut and paste in the discussion from that thread, too.

Would save so much time and effort.

[Umbrella man]

William is right. We spend too much time discussing short-term opinion polls and not enough time focusing on long-term threats. Compare the number of comments already made on this thread with the small number on the Iran threat thread.

[TomTom]

That's a interesting point, TomTom. Do you think that Cameron would get the push if he failed to win the next election?

Posted by: Comstock | May 24, 2007 at 08:54

If the Conservatives lose a fourth election it is the party that is finished not just the leader - it means it will have entered the 21st Century with no prospects of ever regaining power just as it only survived by entering coalition in 1916 and but for 1931 would probably have disintegrated

[Vote Freedom]

I would say the Tory parties best chance of winning the next election would be to have David Davis as their leader. and dump the camerloon

[BobSykes]

Funny isn't is how the following is largely ignored by the Tebbitites:

Cons led by DC 38%
Lab led by GB 30%

I'd say that was still pretty encouraging at this stage?

[ChrisC]

"The hypothetical Tory lead widens to 8% when Brown is named as Labour leader and Cameron as Conservative leader."

That doesn't seem to support the "Cameron is shallow" line of argument, if Cameron is more popular than his party?

Though how exactly are we meant to interpret that 2% versus 8% difference? Do people, when told the names, say: oh yes, I'd forgotten about those two bozos?!

[HF]

I am a supporter of DC. But my findings on the doorstep when canvassing in the locals show that we have lost about 2 percentage points off our 39%/40. We actually fought the locals at just below our peak polling.

Overall the English councillor numbers were ahead of expectations but they were more based on the fact that our base has moved up so much in the first months of 2006 and essentially we had the 2006 polling figures applied to this blip with 10,000 contests. Because our polls are now so much higher than 2003, the gains did of course flow through.

The polling peaks that came after May 06, did not show in the results.

Most of the voters we have lost when questioned can clearly be traced to the effects of the Mail/Telegraph sniping at DC. Heffer, Daley, Hitchens etc. Invariably they have become "no voters" than gains to other parties.

That said I can understand the need to focus on gaining 3% or 4% of the Lib Dem vote as that is the flakiest of the lot. But the Lib Dems are saying that in most of the marginals we made little progress.

[Cllr Nicholas Bennett]

Creating an unnecessary row over Grammar Schools which has led to resignations from loyal members is not good politics.

[You aint seen nuthin yet]

Bob Sykes, it is not encouraging. The government has been in meltdown over the Brown succession, the Iraq War, ID cards, prisoner releases, junior doctors and numerous other cock-ups.

The Blair spin machine has been winding itself down. Cameron has had an open goal. It will be a different story when Brown and his team take over number 10.

Gordon Brown has one big advantage over Blair, He has David Cameron's file and papers from when he was Special Adviser to the Treasury. He would not show them to Blair.

There are rumours in the Westminster Village that Dave wrote a paper for Lamont that advocated Britain joining the Euro. If it is true (and Brown releases it during the conference season as is thought) there will be civil war at Blackpool. UKIP will be have a field day.

[Martin Bristow]

What are forward looking centrist solutions and why are traditionally "right wing ideas" outdated as Matt Wright asserts?We need to unpick this language and understand clearly what is on offer from our party as embodied in David Cameron.

Are centrist solutions typified by the following:

1 Hugging hoodies uggesting sympathy and understanding be given to the young thug rather than the victim of their criminal endeavour.

2 The abandonment of selective education and the expansion of grammars in favour of the Blairite Education agenda.

3 Failure to lead the way in developing a new grouping in europe on the centre Right offering a more democratic and decentralised model for the EU

4 Failing to committ to a more ambitious Tax reduction regime aimed at assiting the poorer memebers of scoiety and rewarding endeavour.

5 Continued obsession with spin following the new labour model.Allowing unelected advisers to drive the agenda.

I would warn Matt and all others who think like him that what sounds good to the political elites in this country does not resonate with those at large.A large and growing number of electors today feel totally alienated.Politicians are not believed and are seen as shallow with no vision.In these circumstances by aping Blair Cameron runs the risk of jumping onto a sinking ship.

Our politics does need a new vibrancy that is true but the way of social democracy and convergence with it is not the way for the Conservative Party.The localist agenda currently being discussed in the telegraph points the way to a more energetic and inclusive democracy.As with much else DC talks positively be does not commit tangibly to this agenda.

[James Maskell]

Polls at this stage of proceedings are pretty uncertain, so I'd wait a few months until we know exactly whats going on. That said, I expect a Labour rise anyway as part of the Brown Bounce.

[Ash Faulkner]

"I wouldn't rejoice too soon, Comstock! I think what we are seeing here is the classic "bounce" which comes with a new leader (or leader elect in this case)! Give it a few months and I am sure we will see the Conservatives establishing a solid lead."

That's exactly what Cameron has been benefiting from since he bacme leader. It's Labour that is losing the polls, not us who are gaining - though to a degree, that's how our electoral system works.

In any case, Cameron needs to up his game. He needs balanced conservatism. His little slogan 'crime and grime' is fine, but he's focused too much on the grime. He needs to address 'bread and butter' issues *as well as* the environment and such.

At it's best the Conservative Party has been a broad church dealing with all issues: at our worst, a divided party who argue and hanker on about Europe and immigration. Cameron is right to take on other issues, but he needs to balance what he's talking about.

He really needs to come out with lots of policies and set out a real vision. He's already left it long enough for him to be painted as wishy-washy and wet, and he needs to stamp it out, because next to prudent, experienced Gordon, it'll look awful. I fear though that the rot has already set in, and this perception of him will now be very different to banish.

[Andrew]

It's the long-predicted Blair departure bounce. People don't talk ill about the dead.... or living dead. It was always inevitable people would soften up their opinion of him as he nears the exit.

Now, what actual Brown effect will we see? Until he's PM we won't know, although I suspect it'll be back to the 39-32 range or so.

[Martin Bristow]

I don't expect the Brown effect to be sustained.I rather agree with Matthew Parris's analysis published in the Times on saturday.There is really no evidence that Brown has any new visionary and appealing policy solutions.He trades on an image of being an intellectual big beast who now's better than anybody.

My problem is that currently the Conservative Party is failing to develop and articulate real policy positions that draw people to our cause.This is leaving the leadership open to charges of having no conviction and positive direction.Under such conditions the best we can hope for after the next General Election is a hung parliament with all the horse trading that will bring.

There are votes out their to win but when parties converge it becomes much harder to win them.

[Rachel Joyce]

Clearly a short-term blip. DC is far more popular than Gordon Brown. The contempt for Brown will only increase as he comes out of the shadows. He is great at working behind the scenes in his Machiavellian fashion (how did he get so many Labour MP's so support him??), but when he is in the spotlight (for instance in the budget), it all starts to unravel.
It didn't take the public and media long to realise they had been hoodwinked in the first few hours after the budget, and they were not best pleased. A man such as him who cannot stand up openly for a policy in the open light of day will not last long in the daylight.

[Steve]

I voted for Cameron despite preferring Davis politically as I genuinely believed and believe that we had to change our tone.

We were 'the nasty party' and were disliked. Not because of our policies (which ones did Labour reverse?!) but because of 18 years of power, scandal, arrogance, division, back-biting, disloyalty etc etc.

And Cameron has done brilliantly at making us relevant again, in the process appearing much more amenable to voters who previously supported us but have drifted to the Lib Dems in particular. And we need these votes in so many marginal parliamentary and council seats. Good stuff.

But I do fear that in his over-riding desire to appeal to a broader church, he is determined to pick fights with anyone who supports our policies of old. We're all 'headbangers', 'delusional', 'pointless' etc.

He's confused the need to modernise and change tone with the apparent need to abandon everything we ever believed in. This provokes a vitriolic reaction from those attached to these policies (not unreasonably - because they have been proven to work and be generally popular); and a backlash of support from those demanding further 'modernisation'.

As Tim the Editor has said in the past, Cameron needs to protect his right flank. Many people wish him well and we are all Conservatives after all, but the dismissive attitude he and his supporters (including those on this site) seem to have for longstanding party workers is shocking and not something which is sustainable.

Cameron has a broad degree of support in the party despite the fact that I suspect MOST party supporters don't agree with a lot of what he says. As long as we're ahead in the polls, we're prepared to (generally) keep quiet. If we drop behind, he could be doomed - and I don't want that.

After 10 years of Labour government, we should be a lot further ahead. Let's hope we get there - for all our sakes.

[Bill]

Well said Steve. Whilst I would not be as generous towards Cameron as you are, you have put it all in a nutshell.

[George Hinton]

Just shows the fickle nature of these polls, best ignored.

[Tory T]

A) "The poll was carried out over the weekend following massive coverage of Labour when the Tories and the Lib Dems were hardly getting a mention. Since then there has been the Tory education row."

B) Blair leaves and the so-called "bounce" still has them trailing.

Tim has rightly made the point that the summer polls will be irrelevant. We will have media focus on Labour up to and past Brown kissing hands.

Nothing will happen now until conference.

[Vote Freedom]

I am sure if it had shown the Tories on 40% plus you would have all waxed lyrical.

It is amazing though that no matter how bad the labour party is, and it is truly horrendous at the moment you still cant as a party wipe the floor with them.

And you are on the verge of self imploding if DC comes out with another statement like the Grammar one. Such as showing support for having a closer arrangement with Europe.

Incredible in how you can grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

[John]

Much as I have sympathy with the current anti-cameron views. I do not think that getting rid of Cameron before the next general election is feasible.

What is called the 'Brown Bounce' but I suspect is the 'Blair Sympathy' vote has been distorted by grammargate and as some have pointed out it won't be until well into the Autumn when we will have a clearer view.

I think the only thing that can be said is there are a lot of uncertain voters at the moment.

The problem is that Brown can call an election at any point.

If the party were to split or remove it's leader before the next election there is no question in my mind that Brown would call a snap General Election to maximise his advantage.

So Cameron must stay for good or for bad. The party must ensure there are no more grammargate's and win the next election.

Unfortunately that's where we are and really we just need to get on with it.......

[simon]

I would suggest a 'rogue poll'. If yougov & Gallup show the same dip, then Cambo is not working as Party Leader. I was ALWAYS suspicious of the 'ok yah' PR types in Court Cambo. Unless the forthcoming policy review reports are impressive, the downward spiral will continue. Cameron is a 'class act' but he is making too many rudimentary errors. One brilliant conference speech promised too much perhaps....

[Peter]

The only solution for the Conservative Party is to split. This has been well stated by T.K.hipperdoodly, Christina and Jorgen on the
site.
"The Tory grassroots have acquired a new confidence during the grammar schools row".

It happened under Peel, and sometimes it is necessary. Those on the right of the party should declare their colours and elect their own leader who believes in traditional Tory policies of low tax, minimal government, grammar schools, nuclear deterrent, strong armed forces, financial incentives to encourage immigrants voluntarily to return home as per Ted Heath's 1971 Immigration Act,and re-negotiate our EU membership to Associate status so we could spend our EU net contributions of 8 billion pounds on our own people and infrastructure .

The other group of "Conservatives" can then hug a hoodie, put windmills on their chimney pots, re-cycle dead bodies to create electricity or any other daft Guardinista policies that Dave think are great as he eats his rusks at breakfast.
With two Conservative Parties, it would be very simple to get local Conservative Associations to choose which one they would support. The UKIP would then not be necessary.

[justin Hinchcliffe]

If you live by the polls, you'll die by the polls.

[Marcus Wood]

I really do worry about the vicious and unpleasant nature of some of the posts on this site from posters like "Alan S" and "Traditional Tory".

If some of you posting here and on previous threads really are Conservative members (and I wonder a lot about that) I do hope I never have the mispleasure of canvassing with you or having to call on your support.

I am proud of the fact that this party is a broad coalition of views; and when I debate with people I try and show some respect.

When we elected David Cameron we accepted the need to move in one direction - a new direction; the poll and election results have validated that that was both necessary and desirable.

Grown-up people can usually accept that; they either live with the changes that the vast majority support, or dont in which case they can join another party. (Unless, of course, they are already IN another party....)

[Martin Bristow]

Marcus is right that we ought not be vicious in our postings against individuals.However reasonable critiscism is surely acceptable.The election of Cameron did not ,in my view,signal an appetite abroad in our party to debunk solid Conservative principle and policy.The Cameron sympathy came simply from the belief that he was young looked good on Telly and might well win.

The fact is that on this site David Davis is consistently the most popular tory front bencher when oppinion is canvassed but he was not seen sufficiently media friendly to win back in 2005.The ideas that Davis stood for however still resonate with large sections of the party and ,indeed the electorate.Cameron's project is now sailing far too close to the Blairite consensus to be considered truly Conservative.It appears more and more that the Tory party is not a conviction for our leader but a career option.I sincerely hope this is not the case.

[onenationtory]

Peter,

Why is that people with views closer to the left of the party are always sen to be the rogue element? We ought to be a broad church based on mutual respect for other people's views.

[Comstock]

The only solution for the Conservative Party is to split.

That is something I've been close to posting for ages, but coming from a Labour supporter would proberbly have been seen as s**tstirring. I haven't read the grammar schools thread but will do so now.

We would need to look at the electoral system though , as the current system favours two large parties.

[Will]

Marcus - if the party is a broad coalition of views, why do those of us who disagree with certain Cameron polices just have to live with it or leave the party?

[Bill]

I am still not sure but maybe Peter is correct about a split (if not about all the policies).
The Tories perhaps necessarily in the past have pulled the wool over the eyes of their supporters more than the opposition. But ultimately you can't ride two bikes at a time.

[Chris]

"Gordon Brown has one big advantage over Blair, He has David Cameron's file and papers from when he was Special Adviser to the Treasury. He would not show them to Blair.

There are rumours in the Westminster Village that Dave wrote a paper for Lamont that advocated Britain joining the Euro. If it is true (and Brown releases it during the conference season as is thought) there will be civil war at Blackpool. UKIP will be have a field day."

This story just doesn't add up. If there was such a file then it would have been uncovered by the press by now, if there is such a file and the press haven't found it then it's probably unpublishable.

It's also possible that such a position paper was written, but was not reflective of Cameron's personal view. When you're doing a job and you're asked to write something, you write it, you don't throw a hissy fit because you don't agree with it's content.

[Kevin Davis]

ICM are rubbish. There is absolutely no consistency to their polling and it swings all over the place. I am getting very worried about pollsters - has anyone else noticed that their results are becoming much too like the political leanings of the newspaper paying the bill? This was always the case but it seems to have become really exagerated since the revival of the Conservatives.

[Michael McGowan]

No point reading much into a single poll. However, it would not surprise me if the events of the last week or two have boosted the number of sometime Tory voters who simply cannot be bothered anymore.

Has anyone read Kalestsky today? He is fairly indulgent to DC and Willetts over the garmmar school debate. However he asks the questions that they duck: if as they claim they are going to import the best of the grammar school ethos into comps, how is this going to happen? In particular, they will have to get tough with the thug and yob element who ruin life for teachers and aspirational pupils in comps. Does anyone really believe that this will happen when the Tory leader's strategy consists of (a) wooing the BBC and the Guardian; and (b) courting the Lib Dems who will take the side of the yobs against the horrible elitist aspirational middle class children who selfishly want to entrench social advantage by learning to read, write and do maths?

[Peter Harrison]

Gordon Brown has one big advantage over Blair, He has David Cameron's file and papers from when he was Special Adviser to the Treasury. He would not show them to Blair.

There are rumours in the Westminster Village that Dave wrote a paper for Lamont that advocated Britain joining the Euro. If it is true (and Brown releases it during the conference season as is thought) there will be civil war at Blackpool. UKIP will be have a field day.

If such a file exists and Gordon Brown has seen it, that is a serious breach of Civil Service rules. And, as Chris says, if your boss asks you to write a paper advocating a particular policy, you write it. In any case, most of us change our minds about a wide variety of things as time passes. It's not a crime. Even Margaret Thatcher did it a few times. I don't really care if Cameron supported the Euro in 1992/3. If he still supports the Euro now, that would be a problem, but it is clear that he does not.

[Marcus Wood]

Will, because we have picked our leader by a clear majority, in the full knowledge of the direction he wanted to lead us in, against an opponent with a very different view, and that is that.

Nobody is saying there shouldn't be debate -least of all me- about policy but when the debate is finished a decision has to be made; and it is being made by the person who is in charge.

All members of the 'broad church' have to accept that - even if they personally didn't agree with the policy, or vote for that leader.

If, after that process is finished, someone cannot live with the policies the majority have willingly adopted their option is to live with it or quit.

What isn't terribly welcome is the wishes of the majority being derailed by the actions of an obessive minority who cannot or will not accept the changes the party has made; especially if in the process they misrepresent what the majority view actually is.

[ToMTom]

If, after that process is finished, someone cannot live with the policies the majority have willingly adopted their option is to live with it or quit..

That is not the way thins work at all...we find dissidents always work to reverse or change policy......rarely have groups ever accepted that their position was wrong,,and usually they have sought to make their view the prevailing orthodoxy.

What you describe Marcus Wood is Bolshevism....that very behaviour that led Lenin to split from the Russian Social Democratic & Labour Party in 1903......are you sure you are not a Socialist Schismatic ?

To pursue your analogy - the Hunting Ban is here to stay because a majority voted to impose it in Parliament and you must simply accept it as immutable

[Mark Clarke]

I am a PPC in the key marginal seat of Tooting.

Conservatives need to keep faith with the Cameron project.

David Cameron is popular in Tooting, so are our policies and so is the tonality with which we express them.

There will be difficult polls ahead. But I believe the strategy is right for Tooting. But even if it were not, the worst thing we could do would be to ditch the strategy - we would be rightly castigated by voters.

So let's not go wobbly.

Remember the darkest hour is just before the dawn.

[italics]

close

[Snodgrass]

David Cameron is popular in Tooting,

Popular Tooting

the Tooting Popular Front, a feeble but ambitious agitprop organisation masterminded by a would-be revolutionary Marxist, Wolfie Smith.

[Vote Freedom]

Nice to hear from the Tooting popular front. DC will be happy to know he is well liked there. But what about the North of England where it really makes or break wether he wins the next election. He is seen as a Eton Toff with no connection to the people.

Your best move would have been to elect David Davis. He wasn't to Northern either for you Southerners or was that the problem?

[Marcus Wood]

TomTom I am not expecting people who disagree on policy to change their mind, I just expect people who purport to be members or supporters of a political party to respect the will of the majority in their party; and not to become blinded by their convictions and in the process damage everyone.

If they don't want to leave and they want to campaign discreetly from within then fine, that is democracy and one only needs to tour the fringe at any UK political parties conference to know that happens.

And I would agree, the hunting ban probably is here to stay; not because as you say the issue is 'immutable' but because the majority view has been expressed by democratic due process; the argument has been lost, the decision has been made.

If at another time, there is a decision to bring back hunting then there will be a new debate; a new democratic process, and probably a new set of unhappy people on whichever side loses.

[Steve]

Marcus, you raise the nub of the matter: you expect members of a political party to accept the will of the majority.

I strongly suspect that the majority of the party don't necessarily support a lot of what Cameron says. They might be prepared, to different degrees, to tolerate it but it doesn't mean they support it. This is why there is conflict. Cameron seems determined to cast off a great deal of the policies we have espoused in the past, regardless of the 'majority' in the party.

Equally, merely because Cameron was elected overwhelmingly does not mean we all share the need for 'modernisation' on the scale that has taken place.

And as I noted in my earlier post, I voted for Cameron and support him today. But I would question his approach to policy (whilst applauding his presentation and 'decontamination' of the brand).

[Michael McGowan]

Marcus, the Tory Party as a broad church is losing credibility. It seems to comprise three largely irreconcilable parishes: social conservatives (e.g. Cornerstone); liberals/libertarians (i.e. people like me); and a group who style themselves as "social liberals" but who have all the centralising authoritarian Cultural Marxist instincts of the UK left. Currently this latter group is well-represented in the leadership. You can insist on respecting the wishes of the majority as much as you like but you will achieve nothing when some members of this coalition oppose each other more than those they claim to oppose.

[Bill]

Well said Michael. I reckon I fall into the same group as you with sympathy for some of the social conservatives and probably none for
the social liberals.

[Andy Stidwill]

Cameron won't be worried by a single poll like this, but if it's repeated over the next few weeks, there could be a few problematic questions for him to look forward to.

[Goldie]

Chin up! The Project is obviously going very well. It's all part of a Master Plan.

[jorgen]

Cameron has stretched the "broad church" past its breaking point and is working hard on exchanging real Conservative members with "social liberal" members.

But let us see. Most of the MPs are social Conservatives and libertarians and they will have to make up their mind as to whether they at the next election want to defend social liberal aspirations/policies or splinter out and form a new party.

I would love to see Davis as a leader, but can he win an election? Hague can.

[Marcus Wood]

Steve, with all due respect it's statements like "I strongly suspect that the majority of the party don't necessarily support a lot of what Cameron says" that makes my point for me.

Even the conhome 'membership' polls point to Cameron having more support now than he had when he won the leadership election; your 'strong suspicion' just isn't bourne out by the facts.

This is my point, unless and until you are prepared to accept the inalienable fact that David Cameron is speaking for the party that support him overwhelmingly this debate is going nowhere.

You also say "Cameron seems determined to cast off a great deal of the policies we have espoused in the past, regardless of the 'majority' in the party" but I'm afraid I can't think of a single policy, aside from the entirely sterile question of Grammar Schools, that I campaigned on in 1997, 2001 and 2005 that Cameron has cast off; and even then I don't remember seeing a policy pledge anywhere that we intended to roll out new Grammars across the UK.

Perhaps you will enlighten me about what particular policies have been so abandoned?

[Chris]

Marcus,
I'm still a big fan of Cameron, but it is true that he has abandoned some of our 20056 policies, most notably patient passports, school vouchers (But Willets wishes to return to them in the future as part of a wider shakeup), withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and opposition to tuition fees (A policy which we should have kept up in my view, as it used to be good for hooking in new student supporters).

Over time I hope we return to some of these policies, but for the time being I am happy to shelve them. What is most important is that the party does not u-turn on these issues. It is one thing to forget scrapping tuition fees, it is another to start increasing them.

[Traditional Tory]

I would love to see Davis as a leader, but can he win an election? Hague can.

Hague not only spoke for all true Tories when he said that Blair had turned this country into a 'foreign land'; he spoke for Britain.

Under Blair our once proud and principled nation has turned into a moral cesspit. It's an evil that needs to be confronted head-on and up until now only the Tory Party has had the clout to do that.

Up until Cameron that is. Now we are 'led' (if that is the operative term) by a man who openly claims to be the heir to Blair and tells us that we should be happy to live in Blair's rancid, divided, Britain.

So, if life under socialism is so wonderful, why should we vote for the Bluelabour imitation?

[Sean Fear]

The same suveys that show support 70-75% for Cameron as leader also show that - on some issues - he expresses views that are not shared by the majority of those surveyed.

All political parties will contain a very large number of people who regard it as their duty to support the leader - even if they have reservations about what he is doing. For example, I don't doubt that most Conservative backbenchers, on a free vote, would have voted against the Maastrict Treaty. Out of loyalty to John Major, most of them voted for it, but with reservations, and at the expense of a great deal of ill-feeling.

A leader should not confuse loyalty to the leader of the day with enthusiasm for the policies the leader espouses.

[Sean Fear]

Michael Macgowan - I think that's a useful summary. Paradoxically, I think that the libertarians and social conservatives are able to rub along better with each other than either group does with the "social liberals." That is because the last group is generally the keenest of the three on State intervention in the lives of individuals.

[Matt Wright]

Martin, it is good that you ask to debate what I meant by "centrist" and "forward looking" although the points you use 1 to 5 are heavily loaded as in "does it mean hug a hoodie ..etc". For the millionth time DC did not say this. What I understood him to mean is that its not enough just to punish people (and I personally strongly believe in being tough on crime) but you do have to look at some of these kids who drift into trouble in some cases because nobody cares about them - often they have no stable family life at all. If I understand that is what DC is saying then yes I totally support him and I don't think that is anything to do with left, right, centre or anything its just plain good common sense. I am sick to the back teeth of the petty way that DC has been criticised for saying this.

Which brings us to language. Terms like left, right and centre are ones pretty much all of us use most of the time but if we are honest they are crude and not that useful terms. However every time we write a post we can't write an essay (thank God) but lets take the 2 elements of what I said. What do I mean by forward-looking. There is a significant element that feel more happy envisaging Conservatism as only about preserving things. Indeed there are also significant elements in the public as a whole who either see things that way or prefer to see the worst aspect in everything (parts of the media often make this worse). For any organisation or society to improve things it needs a level of positivity and feel able to innovate and explore things without risk of always being told its worng or we don't do that here (or in this party). In very simple terms that is what I mean by forward-looking and generally I think our party and our nation needs that at the moment.

What do I mean by "centrist". I actually don't like the term and it has many false connotations. However what I am getting at is that I think the British are a fair-minded people, not generally prone to extremism. Unless there is a massive overriding problem (such as war or really major economic problems) then they tend to want balanced solutions that help the broad base of people not just a few. That does not mean that ideas that appeal to the centre are an average between left and right. People have quite complex sets of views. For example I beleive that a modern form of national service could have quite broad appeal yet traditionally such a view might have been construed as right wing (or possibly left wing for that matter). It would certainly be a very distinctive policy.

I suspect that many of us on this site would agree on most things and yet posts drift into attacks on each other inflamed by a few culprits who are obviously trying to create problems for the party. All too ofetn we make assumptions about each other. I suspect it is the anonymous, impersonal nature of blogs and the internet. I am actually getting less and less inspired by blogs and think that all the calims for them are overstated,

Matt

[Steve]

You're missing the point Marcus.

I fully support Cameron as I've said above. And at no point did I say other members of the party don't support Cameron - read my posts carefully.

I simply said many members are dubious about some of the things he says (and doesn't say) and the vast majority of people in the party I come into contact with say the same.

We are inherently loyal, we want him (and the party) to do well, but we have grave
concerns about our policy profile.

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that because the party voted for Cameron and supports him today, we all support everything he says.

It was you who mentioned the need for party members to submit to the views of the majority. Ironically, this is precisely what Cameron (and you) are not doing. This is the conflict that has to be resolved.

Plus, like others who make derogatory comments about those who retain their support for grammars ('a sterile debate') you miss the point here also.

It was not the fact that no new grammar schools are to be built (as you correctly mention) but the sustained negativity about them, that infuriated many in the party.

Chris above also points to the patient's passport, oppostion to tuition fees etc as policies which have been abandoned, to which I could add our tough line on immigration.

And that's not to say that these policies shouldn't be reviewed as I've said previously. It's merely that Cameron and his advisors seem to have rushed to abandon them despite the misgivings of many in the party.

And he's not ahead by enough in the polls to justify his actions.

[Michael McGowan]

That is probably right, Sean. At least the social conservatives and the (real) liberals manage to agree to disagree. It is the nature of Marxism that its disciples do not do compromise. Dissenters from the faith are by definition evil or deranged....or in the words of the Leader of the Opposition "delusional".

[Opinicus]

I am no enthusiast for Cameron but I applaud what he has done in decontaminating the Party. This is why the Party voted for him to make us electable, not as Marcus Wood and the several Richards would have us believe because we signed up to any clear and specific alternative policy agenda. The attempt to suggest that the election was a refernedum on grammar schools or hugging hoodies is simply nonsense.
The right can live with Cameron if he is veering left to win but not if he is left. There is no point in my canvassing for Labour policies, when I can let some bearded student/university lecturer do it and drink gin. His intolerance, which is quite petulantly expressed, of internal disagreement is wearing down internal civility.
More fundamentally, I increasingly believe that the cameron strategy is just wrong. Having neutralised the electorate's antipathy to us, niceness and general Blairishness ie PR management (particularly if it is the sort of PR management of the grammar school fiasco) is NOT going to be sufficient to win the next GE. What an increasingly cynical electorate wants is answers to Britain's problems not platitudes. Blairism is exploded. These answers can only come from the radical Right but they have to be wrapped in a human face. That is the challenge; that is where Cameron could be so useful - if he's a white hat and not a public school leftie.

[Anon Mk I]

Remind me, by what percentage did DC win the leadership?

'seizure of power'... where does that come from? I don't remember a coup.

I am so pleased I am not alone in thinking that some of these postings are rather OTT. Sadly I think that a few of the posters on this site are party members but if they hate us all so strongly you'd have thought they'd have better things to do with their time.

Marcus, agree with you wholeheartedly and yes Martin, no one wants to stop constructive criticism and debate. That's what this website is all about.

[Matt Wright]

Jonathan, well I think the social responsibility agenda DC has talked about is a good one that picks up on your need for an aim. I do agree with you though in so much as we need to develop that theme now into practical solutions. However I am confident we will,

Matt

[Marcus Wood]

Jonathan, you may have voted for Cameron without signing up to a clear and specific alternative agenda but I am certain most members understood very well what Cameron was saying - his slogan 'change to win' was a weeny bit of a clue, wasn't it?

His several debates with DD were more clear and his agenda more specifically debated than in any other leadership election this party has ever had.

Yes, some of us will have to accept policy changes we don't like (and I accept he dumped the patients passport - this hugely misunderstood policy certainly cost me votes last time as confused pensioners said to me 'Does this mean I'll be forced have to pay for my hip replacement?); but no, we most certainly aren't being taken 'left' in any meaningful manner whatsoever.

What we are doing (at last) is facing up to issues that ordinary votes care about, like what happpens in the 3,000 schools that aren't Grammars, rather than to the 160 that are.

Lastly, I cannot believe that 'Traditional Tory' is real, c'mon you are a Lib Dem wind-up aren't you?

[Opinicus]

@Marcus Wood
The leadership election crystalised after one barnstorming speech, which showed Cameron to be a media natural and that, in the context of Blair, was all anyone cared about. No one read the small print, which is why so many people are shocked. Telling us we voted for him and must now live with it, which is increasingly the CCHQ line on this site, invites mutiny not as a duty but as a pleasure.

Traditional Tory is a touch strong and may be a parody but if you haven't got several of him in your Association in Torbay, you aren't spending enough time in the Conservative Club bar.

[ToMTom]

Out of loyalty to John Major, most of them voted for it,

Sean, Major made it a Confidence Motion as I recall with a 3-line Whip. The only loyalty displayed was to not having to fight a General Election, ie. themselves

[Michael McGowan]

I am surprised that on the strength of Cameron's famous landslide, he doesn't make himself leader of the Tory Party for life. He is starting to resemble Napoleon and his leadership campaign was a masterpiece of Blairite obfuscation.

[Steve]

Marcus, it is fantasy to imagine that ordinary party members backed the whole 'modernisation' agenda when they elected Cameron. They didn't.

And once again, you're falling into the trap of believing that voters generally were turned off by our policies and that we lost three elections purely because of them.

They weren't. They were generally turned off by us, and Cameron has done fantastically to turn that around.

All I'm saying is he shouldn't take party members for granted or give the impression of not giving a damn what they think. That way disaster lies and nobody wants that.

[Marcus Wood]

It's just so bizarre reading post after post from people in complete denial about all this.

In a long running debate which lasted for ten years the vast bulk of the party have (eventually) indeed concluded that our policies were inadequate; finally catching up with thr rest of the public -who I may remidn you gave us less MP's than in any election since 1832 under the policies you say weren't the problem.

The party and our policies are inseperable.

We had policies that suited some people a lot but affected most people not at all; this gave the impression that we were a party that were not interested in all of Britain, only some (middle class) Britains.

Cameron made it abundantly clear where he wanted to take us if elected. I am amazed that now some people seem to be saying they didn't know what he was like.

If you buy a tin of woodstain that says 'woodstain' on the tin you don't complain if when you open it it does indeed contain woodstain.

[jorgen]

Good point, Marcus. Then I suppose that if it it says "Conservative Party" on the label, they should with DT's Matt add underneath: "I can't believe it is not the Labour Party"?

:)

[Traditional Tory]

Lastly, I cannot believe that 'Traditional Tory' is real, c'mon you are a Lib Dem wind-up aren't you?

Tsk tsk Marcus. 'UKIP Troll' surely?

Actually it's now 37 years membership of this party and not for one second of that period have I ever given quarter to TRG types and their hangers on.

[Sean Fear]

I would agree that it was clear enough to me where Cameron would lead the Party.

Which is why I voted for Davis.

[Scotty]

"I am surprised that on the strength of Cameron's famous landslide, he doesn't make himself leader of the Tory Party for life. He is starting to resemble Napoleon and his leadership campaign was a masterpiece of Blairite obfuscation."
OTT comment and a real case of "soor plums".
Agree with both Marcus Wood's comments and he makes clear again and again that David Cameron was elected leader because the majority of the party knew WE had to change and we could sit around waiting for the voters to be left with no where else to go before they moved in our direction. We are in hung parliament territory if that is the case and I for one would see a Lab/Libdem coalition even more damaging than Brown at the helm on his own. PR anyone???

"I am no enthusiast for Cameron but I applaud what he has done in decontaminating the Party. This is why the Party voted for him to make us electable, not as Marcus Wood and the several Richards would have us believe because we signed up to any clear and specific alternative policy agenda."

Constructive criticism is one thing, but as we have witnessed on several occasions in the past 17 years deliberate attempts by some to yank the leash on a Conservative leader has undermined them and caused massive disunity within the party and it really does turn voters off. Everyone says that the leadership handled the grammar school issue badly, I disagree I think that a few jumped on this issue in an attempt to use it as a vehicle to rein Cameron back into line. The BBC picked up on it and ran with it because they had plenty of people willing stoke this up.
We have to accept that we must appeal to a the wider electorate and that we are as a party FIT to govern and will not immediately resort to the unedifying spectacle that we saw under Thatcher, Major, Haig, IDS and to a lesser extent Howard because he resigned on a long notice before the usual suspects could start undermining him.
This stupid and pathetic argument over a couple of comments on a policy we dropped 30 years is the kind naval gazing self indulgence we have become famous for, and it does hurt our image and reminds people why they don't like us. David Cameron trying to prove that we have changed as a party and we just can't help ourselves by trying to prove him wrong.
18 years in power with various majorities and not one grammar school built, so I am sorry this sudden outrage just does not wash!

[Traditional Tory]

David Cameron was elected leader because the majority of the party knew WE had to change

Cameron was elected because Davis fluffed his big moment.

All got to change have we, Scotty? How have you changed? I wouldn't mind betting you are still exactly the same PC lefty you were before you'd ever even heard of Cameron.

Everyone says that the leadership handled the grammar school issue badly, I disagree

If you really believe that, you're nuts.

[Daniel VA]

*telephone rings*

ConservativeHome: Hello?

Caller: Oh yes, it's the year 2005 calling. We have reason to believe that some contributors to your comments threads have stolen our arguments and we'd like them back please.