In your first speech as party leader you called for "a massive road-building programme". How is that compatible with your claim to be green?
I don't think that having congested roads with cars stuck in traffic jams is good for the environment and I therefore don't believe that building new roads where they are needed is at all incompatible with a green agenda. We also need to do more to increase the capacity on our railways and other forms of public transport and these are areas our policy review will be looking at carefully.
Should I buy green beans flown in from an impoverished part of Africa?
Food miles can be misleading because what matters more is the carbon footprint. I think there is a growing awareness about the environmental impact of flying food thousands of miles, and people are right to try to source their food locally where possible. But, of course, this is not always possible.
Do you despair of your party members' determination to live in the past?
I don't accept that they are. It is the Conservative Party that voted for change 18 months ago. Local constituency associations that are selecting women candidates up and down the country. And Conservative councils taking the lead when it comes to local recycling projects.
Do you think we should pull out of Iraq now as Sir Christopher Meyer recommended?
No, but we should focus on rapidly building up the Iraqi army and passing more responsibilities to Iraqi government. That will make it easier to bring our troops home sooner.
Are you ashamed to have written the 2005 manifesto, which pledged to pull Britain out of the UN Convention on Refugees? And which former Tory policy most appalls you?
In elections, you fight as a team and you win or lose as a team. When you lose, as we did in 2005, then you learn as a team.
Click here for the rest
Will you raise VAT on energy to 17.5% as the Conservatives planned in 1997 ?
Posted by: TomTOm | June 11, 2007 at 08:32
Why do you think selective education should be the preserve of the rich? And why, having given up so many core principles, have we made so little progress in the polls?
Posted by: William MacDougall | June 11, 2007 at 09:19
Mostly straightfoward answers which I think is refreshing. I'm not sure I like his remark about Europe however. I thought the primary objection to the EU was its ability to interfere with our laws. The answer on the 2005 manifesto was weak. There was little wrong the manifesto but quite a lot wrong with our campaign strategy which seemed to concentrate on immigration to the exclusion of most other things.
I have to say though after the Mirror contretemps I am suprised that DC is devoting much time to the readers of the Independant who are insignificant in number and given the editorial line of that newspaper very unlikely to vote for us.
Posted by: malcolm | June 11, 2007 at 09:50
The idea that DC 'wrote' the 2005 manifesto is nonsense. Whether he drafted bits of it, I don't know -- but the content was determined by others. DC's role was as a manager of the compilation process.
Posted by: Erasmus | June 11, 2007 at 09:51
I think you're wrong there Malcolm.
Grant Shapps, our biggest campaigning MP, said that the secret of success in elections is "keeping the voters you've got and finding new ones".
Almost all polls show that when DC's name comes up we keep those who say they identify as Conservative. Now what he needs to do is persuade swing Labour and LibDem voters to switch. Reaching out to them in the papers they read is a key part of that. We don't win unless a number of those who wanted Blair and Kennedy two years ago go tick the box for Cameron this time.
Posted by: Tory T | June 11, 2007 at 09:53
Hear hear Erasmus. The Shad Cab gave him the policies, he wrote them up in prose. Had he in fact determined every policy he'd have been Michael Howard!
Posted by: Tory T | June 11, 2007 at 09:54
Interesting. No one seems to be talking about the fact that he said that Britain "should never join the Euro".
Posted by: dizzy | June 11, 2007 at 09:55
@Tory T
Almost all polls show that when DC's name comes up we keep those who say they identify as Conservative. Now what he needs to do is persuade swing Labour and LibDem voters to switch.
This is the biggest source of dispute on this site and cannot go uncallenged. The right on this site argues, IMHO correctly, that it is easier to gain votes from non-voters in 2005 and 2001, than from floating voters who voted Labour or LibDem in 2001 or 2005. But this requires a different strategy to the Cameron project - not more Blair but better policies.
Ditch the 3 party fix and win for Britain.
Posted by: Opinicus | June 11, 2007 at 10:45
Dizzy, I have long argued that Cameron is a Eurosceptic. Posters don't really like to see evidence that shows that he is one (although to be fair, there was an acknowledgement by Sean Fear and others yesterday when he demanded a referendum over the Constitution)
Posted by: Tory T | June 11, 2007 at 11:40
Jonathan, right - and what about the 2005 manifesto did you find insufficiently Conservative to reach those non-voters?
Posted by: Tory T | June 11, 2007 at 11:41
Grant Shapps, our biggest campaigning MP, said that the secret of success in elections is "keeping the voters you've got and finding new ones".
Posted by: Tory T | June 11, 2007 at 09:53
As opposed to getting rid of the old ones and finding a smaller number of new ones?
Posted by: Richard North | June 11, 2007 at 11:43
Yes, as opposed to that.
Have you seen any of the opinion polls taken since David Cameron became leader, Richard? Or did you happen to notice the results gained under his leadership in the last two local elections?
Posted by: Tory T | June 11, 2007 at 12:00
Have you seen any of the opinion polls taken since David Cameron became leader, Richard? Or did you happen to notice the results gained under his leadership in the last two local elections?
As I think I've pointed out before, the share of the vote in local elections shows two interesting features:
(1) This year and last were all but identical. So if a good result was a result of DC's effort, then he accomplished everything in his first few months and nothing at all since. Does this seem likely?
(2) Both years, the share of the vote was above opinion poll ratings for the party nationally. How does this square with the oft-expressed opinion that voters dislike local activists (who are "extreme", "old-fashioned", "xenophobic", etc etc blah blah) but are attracted to trendy new DC?
Posted by: Alex Swanson | June 11, 2007 at 12:11
From the full interview:
The thing that struck me most while working as a teaching assistant was the importance of discipline in class; a very small number of disruptive pupils can ruin the educational chances for everyone else in their school.
No sh*t, Sherlock.
I - and I'm sure many other party members - could have told him that years ago.
The idea that this could have come as any form of revelation just shows how out of touch senior Tories - not just DC - have been with ordinary life, not just lately, but for a long time.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | June 11, 2007 at 12:31
"voters dislike local activists (who are "extreme", "old-fashioned",
"xenophobic", etc etc blah blah) but are attracted to trendy new DC?
We're all used to that pack of lies now. He's gone out to rubbish his own party with the biggest lies out and then he has the nerve to say we've changed to be like him!!!
What rubbish. I see the same old members and they have the same old views which do NOT include gay wedding and the other stuff with which Cameron has tried to smear our party.
We'll be here long after he has shoved off.
Posted by: John Irvine | June 11, 2007 at 12:58
"voters dislike local activists (who are "extreme", "old-fashioned",
"xenophobic", etc etc blah blah) but are attracted to trendy new DC?
We're all used to that pack of lies now. He's gone out to rubbish his own party with the biggest lies out and then he has the nerve to say we've changed to be like him!!!
What rubbish. I see the same old members and they have the same old views which do NOT include gay wedding and the other stuff with which Cameron has tried to smear our party.
We'll be here long after he has shoved off.
Posted by: John Irvine | June 11, 2007 at 13:03
If we attract a voter from the main opponent that is a +2 gain. If we attract a non-voter it is only a +1 gain.
Posted by: HF | June 11, 2007 at 13:19
I have long argued that Cameron is a Eurosceptic. Posters don't really like to see evidence that shows that he is one
I'd love to see evidence of it, but I haven't yet.
Arguing that there should be a referendum on a treaty is not at all the same thing as saying that the treaty should not be signed at all.
The only three bits of "evidence" that I've seen are:
* Leaving the EPP. Not valid until actually carried out.
* Refusing to join Euro. But this is not a realistic proposition anyway; even Labour is not seriously suggesting it.
* Demanding referendum on treaty. But Labour itself promised one; not to continue to demand it would be to support Labour in a pro-EU, anti-democratic posture. DC might or might not be a eurosceptic, but he's not stupid. And, please note, as previously mentioned, he's not actually says what happens if the treaty is signed without one.
As has also been pointed out, he could if he wanted promise a referendum on EU membership. That would not in itself be anti-EU; he could allow Conservative MPs a free vote and even himself campaign for a "yes" result. It would simply be democratic. Why won't he?
Posted by: Alex Swanson | June 11, 2007 at 13:23
Waffle and evasion from beginning to end. Was this an actual interview or just a list of queries passed over to some spotty gofer to draw up the replies?
Food miles can be misleading because what matters more is the carbon footprint.
Booking an air flight online I have just been invited to 'offset my carbon emmissions' by some commercial concern.
I suppose this means that so many trees are planted every time I make a flight. I recall this was one of the many bunnyhugging gimmicks 'embraced' by Cameron (and as soon forgotten)
It struck me that these sort of things are the modern equivalent of Papal Indulgences.
So where is our 21st century Luther?
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 11, 2007 at 13:58
@HF
Yes but if the probability of energising a disaffected Thatcher Tory (ie 3m/n) to come and vote for the first time since 1992 is 0.6 and the chance of getting any of the core loyal voters in 2005 to switch is 0.1 (figures admittedly plucked from the ether) then your figures are +0.2 and +0.6.
@Tory T
It is not a case of going back to the 2005 manifesto (which DC was himself responsible for, rather than I) but of producing a 2007/2008 manifesto that *will* energise the missing Thatcher Tories who have kept away from the polls in disgust since 1992.
Almost by definition that manifesto should not consist of reheated Blairism. Either the voter approves in which case he would want to vote Blair, whose idea it was or he disapproves and wants something else.
If CCHQ have no new ideas, then they should invite some of us in for a friendly chat and after they have apologised for expecting beauty and media savvy to be a substitute for brains in a candidate, we will do the thinking for them. If, however, they believe, as appears to be the case, that new ideas are dangerous and unwanted then the evidence is becoming increasingly clear that they are just plain wrong - but beautiful and very media savvy (apart from the lack of chins and the grammargate fiasco obviously.
Posted by: Opinicus | June 11, 2007 at 15:57
@ToryT
Actually several specifics about the 2005 manifesto were less right wing and populist than I would have liked e.g.
No promise of a referendum on Europe
£4b tax savings only and all out of "administrative waste", which the public just doesn't believe.
No education vouchers
No English Parliament
No reform of family and divorce law
No use of referendums in social questions
Posted by: Opinicus | June 11, 2007 at 16:44
We are back to attacking the leadership then? The 2005 manifesto lost the election so move on. The way to win the next election is to win voters of the other main parties.
Posted by: cleo | June 11, 2007 at 18:40
The 2005 manifesto lost the election so move on.
We've done that.
We elected the man who wrote it.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 11, 2007 at 18:47
@Cleo
Assertion isn't argument
How do you propose to win those voters and why ignore the 40% who didn't vote in 2005?
Posted by: Opinicus | June 12, 2007 at 01:19
I fought the 2005 election as a Candidate with Cameron's manifesto. I found it unhelpful at best: inconsistent and unexciting, too little to excite activists, but including right wing measures that turned off the centre and populist measures that turned off thinking people.
I don't agree with those who think we could win the next election by being more right wing, but all the same we should not be abandoning centre-right policies that excite our activists and build for the future except where it really helps win the centre. And some policies are so fundamental they should not be abandoned even where they might help us win. Cameron is surrendering future battles before they have even started.
All too often Cameron has been turning off activists without winning much support from the centre. IDS would probably be achieving the same poll results given how discredited this government is. Why be "Heir to Blair" when no one likes him?
Posted by: William MacDougall | June 12, 2007 at 02:31
>>IDS would probably be achieving the same poll results given how discredited this government is<<
Exactly. He certainly would be. What a shame IDS was stabbed in the back by people who now expect loyalty.
His decency would have won the next election for us.
Posted by: Nikki C | June 12, 2007 at 06:29
Jonathan
" CCHQ have no new ideas, then they should invite some of us in for a friendly chat and after they have apologised for expecting beauty and media savvy to be a substitute for brains in a candidate, we will do the thinking for them. "
A generous offer, but I imagine our sustained lead in the polls ever since Cameron took office, and crushing victories far beyond media predictions in two successive sets of local elections - with the Tories progressing against Labour and Lib Dem, more NW councils than Labour now - would persuade CCHQ that on balance, tough though the choice may be, they should stick with their winning strategy.
Posted by: Tory T | June 12, 2007 at 08:05
Yes, the 'winning strategy' of posing as 'Heir to Blair' and remaining policy-free while the real thing makes himelf steadily more unpopular has had some success, it must be admitted, although we remain well below where we should be at this stage in this parliament.
Sadly, the Cameroon fox will be ceremonially shot on 27th June.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 12, 2007 at 08:53
Don't you ever get bored writing the same old crap everyday Traditional Tory/Mark McCartney/Alex Forsyth etc? I'm sure I can't be the only person who is as bored as hell hearing you make the same point whatever the subject of the thread.
Posted by: malcolm | June 12, 2007 at 09:04
@ToryT
Your sustained lead has not been so sustained recently and has never been higher than 39/32. There is no psephologist in England who would declare that a margin for victory at the next general election. Equally local govt elections have been repeatedly shown over 30 years to be a poor guide to subsequent general election performance.
CCHQ's strategy is not a winning strategy. The poll of polls on this site and theYougov headline have not changed substantially in 15 months. That is sustained but not good enough.
How do you propose to get from 38 to the 42 you need without re-engaging the lost voters? How do you propose to re-engage those voters without giving them something new that the 3 party fix doesn't? Why is CCHQ satisfied with 38%?
Posted by: Opinicus | June 12, 2007 at 10:12
"Your sustained lead has not been so sustained recently and has never been higher than 39/32."
Hasn't it, indeed?
I would suggest familiarising yourself with the polls before you offer to teach CCHQ.
Posted by: Tory T | June 12, 2007 at 10:13
Just one example
http://tinyurl.com/327g4z
Posted by: Tory T | June 12, 2007 at 10:21
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/03/40_tories_are_1.html
Didn't like my html. Fixed.
Posted by: Tory T | June 12, 2007 at 10:55
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/03/40_tories_are_1.html
Sorry, Jonathan - my linking skills are evidently poor. That can be copied and pasted. Safer.
Posted by: Tory T | June 12, 2007 at 10:56
@ToryT
You are generalising from the particular
This would have been a more honest URL
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/Voting%20Intention%20post%202005.pdf
Sustained mediocrity will not win the next GE.
I am a Conservative, have been for over 30 years. I want the Party to win. I would genuinely like to hear the answer to my 3 questions above. If there is an answer, I will shut up and post much more positive. If its a big secret or surprise email me and I will treat it to Chatham House rules. I cannot believe CCHQ have not considered the questions.
Posted by: Opinicus | June 12, 2007 at 11:55
Jonathan,
Cameron has taken us to a far better position than his more rightwing predecessor. That is a fact. I did scroll up to try to find your three questions, if you would repost exactly what they are I'll try my best to answer them although I am not from cchq, but I do completely support Cameron.
Posted by: Tory T | June 12, 2007 at 12:01
Last paragraph at 10.12
You are using right wing as a pejorative term. I want a government with ideas and a plan about how to get us from here to No10 and from No10 to the History books (in a good way).
This government only ever completed part A of that journey and will go down to history as a waste of space. Its monument will be the Dome - a lot of money and publicity and completely empty. When will CCHQ announce its Part B?
Posted by: Opinicus | June 12, 2007 at 21:57
"Cameron has taken us to a far better position than his more rightwing predecessor."
No he hasnt
Where do you get these ideas from?
Posted by: Downsize the NHS | June 12, 2007 at 23:04