Conservative lead up to 5% according to ICM

An ICM survey in The Sunday Telegraph suggests that the Tory lead is up from 2% (when ICM conducted their last survey for The Guardian) to 5% but you wouldn't know that from the headline over the newspaper's coverage.  "Cameron much weaker than Brown, says voters" is the top spin chosen by The Sunday Telegraph.  Rather than the 37% to 32% advantage enjoyed by a Cameron-led Conservative Party the newspaper chooses to focus upon a finding that Gordon Brown is seen to be stronger by 53% to 33% of respondents.  The overall head-to-head questions confirm what many already suspected; Cameron is generally seen as friendlier, more caring, more inspiring and more forward-looking whilst Brown is more experienced, stronger and (hilariously) more competent.

The ICM poll was conducted after the Graham Brady resignation but largely before the U-turn stories of the last 48 hours.

Comments

[Tory T]

Thanks for the ToryDiary on this Ed.

And here's the lesson for Cameron on "grammarsgate" (ConHome).

1. Don't listen to a bunch of ukip voters dominating an online Conservative forum.

2. Continue your modernisation programme and do not look back. Voters do not want the majority of children confined to sink secondary moderns.

3. Voters can see past the teeth gnashing of the "core vote Tories" to the fact that streaming all subjects, discipline, and traditional teaching methods will work wonders.

4. WE HAVE RETAINED OUR LEAD ON EDUCATION IN THE INTERNALS OF THIS POLL.

5. Do not be fooled into thinking that ConHome, excellent as it is, is in any way representative of "the grassroots", officially or unofficially. The Observer polled constituency chairman and found that more than two thirds support you, not Graham Brady, on grammar schools.

This is an absolute defeat for the Core Vote Tories on this issue. It couples with YG's 39%.

[Editor]

Some reactions to Tory T:

1. Don't listen to a bunch of ukip voters dominating an online Conservative forum.

This site Tory T is not out of line with Tory candidates and MPs I have talked to over the last three weeks. It's not out of line with the threads you see below Mail and Telegraph articles either. If you want to dismiss your critics as UKIPpers you have learnt nothing from the last three weeks. Nothing.

2. Continue your modernisation programme and do not look back. Voters do not want the majority of children confined to sink secondary moderns.

Who is proposing "sink secondary moderns" for any child? You do not help your argument by misrepresenting your opponents.

3. Voters can see past the teeth gnashing of the "core vote Tories" to the fact that streaming all subjects, discipline, and traditional teaching methods will work wonders.

I've said on a number of occasions that overall Tory education policy is excellent. What I don't like is your attack on core vote Tories in your piece. I don't like the language some Tories use towards the modernisers either. David Cameron was wrong to attack his critics as "delusional".

4. WE HAVE RETAINED OUR LEAD ON EDUCATION IN THE INTERNALS OF THIS POLL.

Good.

5. Do not be fooled into thinking that ConHome, excellent as it is, is in any way representative of "the grassroots", officially or unofficially. The Observer polled constituency chairman and found that more than two thirds support you, not Graham Brady, on grammar schools.

I think they polled Chairman - the most loyal of party members - and then, I think, only fifty. That poll is out of line with ICM and YouGov surveys of Tory voters who support grammars.

[Tory T]

1. Cannot agree Ed. The commenters are indeed people who either vote UKIP or say that since Cameron was elected they won't vote Tory etc.

2. Sink secondary moderns is exactly, exactly what happens when the best children go to grammars. Why does ConHome think Margaret Thatcher and John Major opened no new grammar schools? Why does ConHome suppose that polls show voters opposed to the 11 plus? The Mail survey diaried earlier in the week ought not to have been - it had a sample size of 500`and it found both that they "supported grammars" and "preferred Labour policies", two diametrically opposed views.

I attack Core Vote Tories. They are I daresay honourable people. But they have lost us three elections. It is a mystery to me how you can possibly take umbrage at such mild and wholly accurate descriptive language given the bile spilled by those same Tories on the prior thread. Those who want to - in my view quite disgracefully - condemn a generation of children who fail a test at eleven years old, who will not accept academic selection within schools but only between schools - are those who prioritise a small majority over the vast majority. They are wrong. And in most cases they accepted the policy on grammars stated when DC took up the leadership when agreeing to serve under him. If you don't like my attack on "Core Vote Tories", I do not appreciate their baying at David Cameron who is giving us a chance to get rid of this EU loving bunch of tax and spend socialists. If in the end there is any damage, and so far the polls show none, it will be their fault and wholly their fault. This policy was in place from day 1 of Cameron's accession. If I sound cross I am. It is no different to the blind rage we have had to endure this week on 20 different threads on grammars from the anti-Cameroons. It is pretty depressing watching a rightwing, sensible policy being torn to shreds by an, in my view, vocal but minor faction.

Finally, the ICM question on grammars was geared to give a specific result. Ask it again and ask if Tory voters support the majority of children being denied the chance to learn with their brighter peers, or to pass up to grammar level if they improve at 12 or 13. The only poll numbers you can trust are vote intention ones.

And one last point not in response to you, but an observation. Cameron's "leadership" is not best measured when he is on holiday. I suggest waiting to see what happens when he returns this week. Starting with his excellent and trenchant Sunday Times piece today.

The

[Tory T]

(I meant to delete that last 'the')

[richard]

I didn't find Dave's Sunday Times article today particularly 'excellent and trenchant'. It was very boring and was probably written by one of the clones who sent such an insulting letter to Graham Brady last week. Much more trenchant was the Sunday Telegraph report on how disenchanted Tories are by Dave's so called leadership. As with hasty marriages the Dave story is basically 'choose in haste, repent at leisure.'

[ToMTom]

Tory T now writes editorials on-site and ignores any evidence contrary to confirmed prejudices.

Clearly if Tory T represents anything more than a New Labour other than the Portillo fringe, the Conservative Party will be dashed on the rocks of massive electoral defeat.

[Tory T]

TomTom, and yet the positions of Cameron, which I support, find increases and solidifying strength in the polls.

How exactly do you explain that, if you think his policies are leading the party to defeat?

[Anon]

(I meant to delete that last 'the')

Posted by: Tory T | June 03, 2007 at 08:47

Why not simply delete everything but that last 'the' so it makes more sense

[TomTom]

TomTom, and yet the positions of Cameron, which I support, find increases and solidifying strength in the polls.

In much of The North Conservatives are on 29%....in Scotland they go nowhere. You speak of Cameron....well I will laid money on him being returned for Witney but whether as anything more than a Backbencher I am not sure

[Denis Cooper]

What was the question on grammar schools, Tory T, and what were the results?

On-line I can only see that 41% trust Cameron to improve schools, and 40% trust Brown. Given that as Chancellor Brown has had 10 years to ensure that enough money is well spent on improving schools, and any improvements in educational outcome have been marginal, it's depressing that as many as 40% of voters still live in hopes that he will do better as Prime Minister. And given the continuing poor performance of schools under this government, it's also depressing that
only 41% believe that it would be any better under the alternative government.

[TomTom]

TomTom, and yet the positions of Cameron, which I support, find increases and solidifying strength in the polls.

Sunday Times editorial

the Tories spent the past fortnight bashing middle class parents who strive to do the best for their children

Polls are irrelevant until October...meanwhile impressions fixed in voters' minds before they go off for Summer vacation will not be changed over the period of Parliament's exceedingly long recess....

The simple fact is the Gordon Brown will be Prime Minister on 27th June 2007 regardless of what the polls say and he will be then judged on his record against Cameron's lack of any ministerial and limited party leadership experience

[William MacDougall]

Does anyone believe our poll results would be worse with a different leader? Only a 5% lead, with the most discredited PM in memory, soon to be replaced with a cold fish? Cameron's programme is not working. It is losing Tory votes without winning Lib Dem and Labour votes. He simple-mindedly thinks that by moving to the left he will win centre-left votes. But things are more complex. Not only are we losing voters' respect by the abandonment of our beliefs, many of those betrayed beliefs are popular. For example, I have more than once convinced Lib Dem voters to vote Tory by arguing that Grammar schools are safer with the Tories.

[ACT]

I suppose the Mori poll yesterday putting us on 37% to Labour's 35% was another sterling triumph, proving that Dave can do no wrong?

[Tory T]

I don't speak for anyone but myself, not dc and not cchq. I post anonymously as you do, and hold my views as passionately as you hold yours. The anti-Cameron chorus who have forever dominated ConHome threads, but not as Tim notes the surveys, need not think that they are the only ones angered this week. Watching the attempts to wreck Tory unity by this chorus has been extraordinarily aggravating.

DC stated his grammars position during his campaign and after his election, end of. There was nothing new here at all so the outrage can't claim to be principled.

[Tory T]

ACT: glad you brought that up. There was no such Mori poll whatsoever. The Express story refererred to the Ipsos-Mori poll of last week and it got the numbers wrong.

[Denis Cooper]

ToryT @ 08:32 - "The only poll numbers you can trust are vote intention ones."

In which regard, I can also see on-line:

Voting intention (Change since last October)

Conservative 37 (-1)
Labour 32 (0)
Liberal Democrat 21 (+1)
Others 10 (0)

Seven months of stagnation, surely?

[Tory T]

Dennis, you have to understand that this poll is taken during Brown's honeymoon period with Labour getting airtime for their Dep Leader race. On here we are "all grammars, all the time" (despite the Editor's brave attempts to introduce other subjects which I acknowledge and welcome). But in the political world, the BBC politics page for example, people are looking at Brown and the Labour deputy contest.

(This also answers the earlier point on Brown and education)

This is the worst possible period to be a Tory for the polls. And the point is we are not losing votes in this period! A couple of minus ones in some polls balanced out by gains in others.

And the polls often slightly understate the Tories. If you look at the polls prior to the locals few of them showed us on 40%. Yet that's what we scored.

Labour are honeymooning right now and they should be 5% ahead of us by all political compasses. But they are still behind on every poll. That is really awful news for them and great news for DC, who, if you remember, has led huge victories in two successive local elections.

[Denis Cooper]

A lot of special pleading there, Tory T, which I certainly don't intend to answer point by point. My overall sense is that the positive Cameron effect has largely run its course and Tory poll ratings have now reached a plateau, if not a peak.

What was the question about grammar schools, and what were the results?

[Bradford]

Tory T...in the May local elections Bradford and leeds both recorded a swing AGAINST the Conservatives and towards Labour and LibDems.....this was the same in 2005 elections.......these are the two biggest cities in West Yorkshire which has 23 Parliamentary Seats and 1 Conservative MP.......

[ACT]

Out of interest, you've in the past posted about polls - ideally accurately reported . . . - to the effect that, sceptics about Cameron shouldn't seize on them when they've dipped donwards. Rightly so. Aren't you guilty of the same sin in reverse, namely clutching to what's not exactly a stellar set of results, no matter what way you pitch it?

But on the point you keep making about how Cameron hasn't bent or changed course - surely you know this is a nonsense? No new grammars to some new grammars should hardly have been the stuff of the front pages for three weeks, but it was, and it was because it was dreadfully mishandled by the leadership.

I think this is where I have least sympathy for your views. I have no time for attacking the leadership of the party for its own sake - that puts you in the same category as those people who undermined Major, Hague and Duncan Smith, and I'm sure none of us want to be called a Portillite. But you, 'Tory T' keep insisting that whatever goes wrong, it's never the fault of the captain but always that of the stokers. That's as daft as those people like Chris Patten who used to blame Major's problems on, oh, Bill Cash, rather than on John Major. We can disagree about whether Cameron's agenda is a mildly good one or a mildly bad one, but your hear no evil, see no evil, denounce others as hideously evil approach isn't rational, it's fanatical.

[Tory T]

Dennis in this poll the question was on education.

I think it will be harder for us to go over 40%, certainly, our last recorded real result. But that gets us to power.

If you don't think the Brown honeymoon period can be counted on to be good for Labour then I respectfully suggest you are out of step with just about everybody who follows polling. The Ed has made the same point at the last ICM poll which had us on 34%.

And now I have some bacon and tomatoes calling...

[Gwendolyn]

I came into this site this morning to delete it, but Tory T has given me new hope. I am sorry Editor but I think you have been mischievus,I arrived back on this site on what you called day 17 when you high-lighted, it seemed to me with much glee, the Mail article, yet at the same time there was a much more thoughtful piece from Matthew Parris which might have balanced the argument but you only showed it as a link. I accept it is your show but with the Cam-bashers so ready to pounce I think a little editorial counter-balance would not have come amiss. I salute the valiant efforts of those trying to make a case to a group of people who it is apparent did not form part of the huge majority gained by Cameron to become our leader. It has been apparent for some time that a disaffected minority are set to destroy our party, which has just got on its feet. I am not suggesting that criticism of the leader and the party should not be allowed, but there are civilised ways of making objections by good argument, such as we had a good example of from ToryT above.

[Ted]

TomTom - so you think Tories are a party only for the middle classes and that only middle classes strive for their children? Lets base our education policy on the desires of those on leafy Buckinghamshire or well off Cheshire. There's obviously no problem with the 95% of secondary schools that most go to that should concern us.

Yes let's build a grammar in every town and give the middle claases just what they want, a privileged education paid for by that means they can spend more on holidays in Tuscany. It's fine because there will be a small percentage of very clever kids from the estates who can get in against the odds.

OK over the top but that's what most voters will see - the rich old Tories putting the needs of other well off tories before those of the majority.

The first comprehensives were well structured schools, with strong ethos and built on basis of offering a grammar school education to all. The weaknesses of comprehensives have been the mixed ability teaching, the lack of rigour, the lack of discipline and lack of collegiate pride - they have become badly managed secondary moderns. It's not the structure of the school but the way it operates that matters - that it aspires, that it offers a range of options from academic to practical, that classes are set by aptitute and ability, that examinations are rigorous, that teachers inspire don't just manage classrooms.

Learn from grammars what works, learn from independent schools what works, learn from high achieving comprehensives what works.

[Editor]

Three more quick reactions to ToryT:

The commenters are indeed people who either vote UKIP or say that since Cameron was elected they won't vote Tory etc.

I have never claimed that commentators are this site are representative but do not fool yourself into believing that there isn't real anger amongst large numbers of Tory activists about education policy and that ConservativeHome threads reflect that. Ask almost any MP...

Why does ConHome think Margaret Thatcher and John Major opened no new grammar schools?

Because they had more urgent things to do but by 1997 John Major had realised that our education system needed a return to centres of excellence and proposed a manifesto that would have seen many new grammar schools built.

I attack Core Vote Tories. They are I daresay honourable people. But they have lost us three elections.

But that is not what this site stands for. I have long argued for a Conservative party that took domestic and poverty seriously, protected the countryside and campaigned for the human rights of the world's most oppressed people. But we cannot ignore the traditional elements of any winning conservative coalition.

[Tory T]

ACT, your post deserves a response, thanks for engaging in real argument.

If you go up to the next thread the Ed just posted an important update. That Greg Clark's statement on grammars *where the system already exists, eg Kent, and only when there is rapid demographic change* was *cleared by David Willets* in advance.

This is supporting the status quo, and doing that was always part of DC's strategy. He never said existing grammars would be threatened. I would concede to you in fairness that we could have made it clearer that that would include status quo where there are existing grammars and a big population jump. If we had done that, there would be no opportunity for the press to mischaracterise with "U turn". But for 90% plus of the country, it still means "no new grammars".

If I can repeat the Daily Telegraph leader from yesterday on this

"No doubt this has been a difficult couple of weeks for many in the Conservative Party, still getting used to the need for change in order to become electable.

But the good news is that Mr Cameron has not been tempted to wobble. His core point remains that grammar schools are a red herring in the education debate.

No grammar schools are likely to close under a future Tory government; perhaps one or two will open, but the overwhelming emphasis of education policy will be on incorporating the grammar-school ethos of excellence and competition into a new model of state education."

On your first point you are quite right in what I say about polls. We should look at macro trends and serious political factors like Labour honeymoons and leadership contests need to be taken into account. The Editor of ConHome made that point with perfect accuracy in the earlier thread on ICM at 34%. All I am trying to say is that the anti-Cameroons here have spent the last two weeks trying to make a *restatement* of existing policy into Clause 4.

And yet the polls are showing the Tories holding steady or increasing as Labour's share moves up thanks to a drop in LibDem support.

That is *awful* news for Brown, and it means that the anti-DC faction cannot argue with credibility that Cameron's strategy is wrong, election-losing or whatever.

My goodness - you know what keeps me up at night? The thought that we are about to sign up to the European Constitution with no referendum and no fight. Surely we on this site should be attacking that, raising profile on that, day in day out. I can't think of anything more vital than the wholescale loss of national sovereignty that will be Blair-Brown's last act to us. Bye-bye veto. But we are chasing our tails on what everybody KNEW was Cameron's position on grammars instead.

We are about to sign up to more rule by Brussels. Please let's start the fight against that here and now!

[Editor]

Gwendolyn,

Did you read my post of yesterday (!?!?) which began with the negative Mail articles but the purpose of which was to highlight the Mail leader. I ended with this:

"ConservativeHome believes we have the right leader for our times. With this week's inspired appointment of Andy Coulson he now has a key adviser who can help him connect with the traditional, northern and lower income voters who are currently unconvinced by the new Conservative Party."

I have to say I'm getting tired of those who attack this site for discussing the grammarsgate row as if every other conservative platform thinks it's all been handled splendidly. Read the News of the World's leader today or the editorial in The Sunday Telegraph. I only hope that Team Cameron isn't as foolish as to blame this last two to three week row on the grassroots. If they learn the lessons from it they'll emerge stronger. If they carry on as they were they'll alienate key newspapers and many traditional supporters.

[TomTom]

TomTom - so you think Tories are a party only for the middle classes and that only middle classes strive for their children? Lets base our education policy on the desires of those on leafy Buckinghamshire or well off Cheshire.

I thought you were a party for Cheshire and Buckinghamshire - that is the message I have gleaned from comments here and from the Conservative Party. Since I live in neither and watch my cousins stuck in third-rate schools because their parents live on disability benefit and cannot afford school fees, I thought there may be some hope for them to escape the third-rate education they are getting where they have zero hope of competing at university level even if they get proper advice from school on how to get there.

Never mind, one has already found a peer group gang to fill in his time before he can escape school (before Johnson raises his sentence to parole at 18) and another has such inflated ideas of what job he can get to earn lots of money that he has no idea of the crushing disadvantage he has in trying to enter such a competitive middle-class profession.

So yes, I would move to Cheshire or Buckinghamshire for proper education, nice scenery, nice people....but they cannot since disability benefit does not buy children into good schools in nice areas

[South East Blogger]

Tory T said..."2. Sink secondary moderns is exactly, exactly what happens when the best children go to grammars"

You seem to have fallen totally for the left wing education establishment.

I am in Kent and have had one son finish at the Grammar School with another doing his GCSE's there.

My third son, passed his Grammar test but after considerable thought sent him to the Secondary School instead (sited next to the Grammar). This is an excellent school and we chose it because we decided it was the right one for him and he is doing brilliantly.

My wife is Vice-Chairman of Governors at the Grammar incidentally.

I read so much rubbish spoken in an emotive way from the left about this subject, it makes my blood boil. Grammars have a place and we should ensure that all towns have a Grammar and in so doing they will help raise the standard of all schools.

[Adam Tugwell]

Facts are facts, the people posting on this site are telling us all how they feel and until the Leadership reconnect with the fact that Members, supporters and floaters all have views which need to be considered, there is absolutely no hope of there being unity amongst us.

I think it is fair to say that we all read things on this site which we find a little distasteful. However, I know that this site does not just represent the sometimes passionate viewpoints of a vocal few, it actually gives a pretty fair representation of the way that many are thinking, but don't feel able to speak about.

We live in a very politically correct age and people are scared to voice their real opinions just in case somebody tells them that disagreement with the 'decision makers' is wrong, that they are guilty and that punishment will follow. SHAME on anybody who propagates this approach!

Quite frankly, I think that anybody who ignores the postings on this site really is not prepared to even consider the thoughts of other people and if we are talking about our MP's here, then they need to ask themselves who they are actually representing in Westminster.

Pat on the back Conservative Home!

[tapestry]

Thw worst the commentators have been able to come up with during Grammargame is the 'Any Dream Will Do' Cameron in his amazinig technicolour dreamcoat.

It gave all sides a good chuckle.

Interesting though is that it was not a cynical representation. Cameron the young dreamer is a funny but not a wholly unattractive image.

It might even be attractive to voters of other hues that the Consevatives hold genuine policy punch-ups in public, however unintentional, and it might even be good to show the leader losing. He was trying to be the next control freak and copy Blair (the young fool) and he failed.

That is not a negative as far as the public are concerned.

We are all so sick of the control freakery of Labour where all policy comes from No's 10 or 11, backed by a compliant media, and no one dares step out of line.

The Grammar Game, as it has turned out was not planned by anyone, but it shows the Conservatives genuinely as they are - full of new ideas, some not yet tested, prepared to be different and an inexperienced young idealistic leader, with the media (yet) having no idea where to go.

To the cynical 'all parties are the same' comment, we can begin to say, ' didn't you see the row over grammar schools? The Conservatives had a big row over policy - and the leadership lost. (almost) unheard of in any other party for 25 years....'

A primary requirement of local democracy and decentralisation is the end of control by Party Leaders in cahouts with the media - localism is the main policy that Cameron espouses. The centre must weaken, and the line-up of powerful media with No 10/11 must be broken.

Grammargame is the first sign that the Blair/media stranglehold of Britain is ending. What a bloody relief! Brady's overdoing it, but who cares? Democracy is crawling back to life in Britain, and it feels bloody refreshing (note the part played in the blogs too - that was a big part of what happened in the last two 2.5 weeks!)

Cameron's been seeking his Clause 4 moment. Grammargame has been Clause 4 in reverse. Just what we all needed, and the COnsewrvatives will be much better for it, and I think more electable.

[ShepleyTory]

Although I often visit this site, this is the first time I've actually posted. I am also an activist who is disappointed at the continual Cam-bashing & support wholeheartedly the comments of Tory T, Gwendolyn & Ted.

As has been said in the past, we need to broaden our base, appealing to our core support alone will only deliver another election defeat.

To build a winning coalition we need to appeal to people who's aspirations and views are less strident than perhaps some of our traditional supporters. What I find disappointing is the failure to recognise that continuing to attack Cameron & what he stands for so publically only plays into the hands of Brown & co.

I would hope that the one thing we all have in common, regardless of our policy differences, is that we want to replace this current discredited regime with a Conservative administration. My politics are perhaps more centrist than many posters on here & there were times under Margaret Thatcher where I had policy differences, but I kept that criticsm & debate within the party & continued to work to ensure we were successful in local & general elections, because regardless of the differences, the propsect of a Kinnock or Foot led governement would have been far worse.

I too am disappointed that we are not further ahead in the polls but see this more of a symptom of the proliferation of minor parties & think that Cameron's emphasis on Green issues may well attract voters away from the Greens & Lib Dems whilst strong support for the family and firm policies on immigration and crime may draw people away from the BNP.

Locally (W Yorkshire) the last local elections were disappointing but I put part of that down to poor/weak orgaisation, in Kirklees we held all of our seats with good majorities except one which we lost to the Greens, but this was down to a disinterested sitting Councilllor and the most poorly organised campaign I've seen for years (I should know I live in the ward!). We do need to do much better but feel that local organisation played as much a part as actual policies.

[ACT]

But 'Tory T', although that was a measured response, which I'm glad we can both engage in, the point I was making to you and the other very keen supporters of the Dear Leader, is that there's a lot of odious follower bashing from the leadership. Mistakes made by the leadership are routinely, absurdly laid at the feet of the followers. Let's just consider what Brady himself said:

This was followed by heavy-handed briefings against me in the next morning's paper from the leader's office.

That was the leadership briefing against Brady, not him against them, and still less the 'core vote' activists briefing against anyone. It was a mistake, and it does the cause of the party no good. For factionalists particularly prone to the leadership to come along and insist that it does is just silly. Briefing against your own people does harm the party, and in this instance very plainly did. And most of us are rightly revulsed by such behaviour - it's why the Portilloites are still such a bye-word for disloyalty and treachery.

Can the leadership learn from *its* mistakes? As I've droned on elsewhere, one of my biggest worries about Cameron, who is an A1 salesman, and right to harmlessly tack greenwards IMHO, is that he has, uh, some problems with, well, personal arrogance, and, political complacency. He's *not* getting everything right, and people like you telling him is aren't in truth doing him any favours. But that arrogant streak, which comes out in pointlessly unpleasant sneers like calling people who disagree with him 'delusional' is going to be harder work to deal with. Put it this way, if Brown can resist caling tankie socialists 'idle fantasists', Dave doesn't have to damage himself by going out of his way to be snide about the people who vote for him.

But the real problem for the 'Tory T'/ultra Cameroon point comes with the substance of what Brady said:

This is not just an internal Tory row. By undermining grammar schools, Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts has set off a row with millions of ordinary working families. People are frustrated by a political establishment that talks about choice but won't let them choose a grammar school. Now, in the face of gathering dissent over Mr Cameron's original plan to build no more grammars, Central Office has changed its stance again. The message now is that, because selection works, areas with grammar schools already can have MORE—but if you haven't got one then tough! This shows how badly thought-out the policy was in the first place.

Rigid Cameroon doctrine teaches them that they have to insist, "Dave never changes his mind, others did, he doesn't". Well he plainly did, and did so only once Grieve left him with no option. He could have sacked Grieve and stuck to the earlier line, or, he could have sacked Willets, and said that Willets had got the earlier line wrong. He did neither, and if you're obsessed with claiming Cameron doesn't bend (which would be an *insane* position, were he actually to try and adopt it), you're just going to sound ever more implausible.

Re Europe, sure, sure (though it does sound a bit core vote to me), but let's try and get out of the EPP perhaps, just that little bit quicker?

[Editor]

ShepleyTory: "We need to broaden our base, appealing to our core support alone will only deliver another election defeat."

I'm in agreement with you. Greater breadth - not a new and different narrowness is the answer. More needs to be done to keep the base with the Project which is one of the reasons I've emphasised the need for leading right-wing members of the shadow cabinet embarking on a Whitelaw/ explanation mission...

Thanks for your comment.

[Tory T]

Ed, we are all getting tired. That's what happens when one subject is covered so exhaustively and we are subjected to language and vitriol such as characterised yesterday's Mail thread.

"more urgent things to do" does not wash - what is more urgent than education? And more urgent for how long, eighteen years?

No, the answer is they knew the polling on excluding the majority of kids at 11!

Look, I am a right winger. What frustrates me intensely is that Cameron has announced a policy that is substantially to the RIGHT of Thatcher or Major on education.

EVERY subject streamed in every school. More discipline. Traditional teaching methods (can the importance of this one be overstated?). Traditional subjects. For heaven's sake, Conservatives, that is a DREAM manifesto! If implemented it will reverse the appalling decline in standards we have seen in this country. The one thing that needs adding is a reform of the examination system and grade inflation.

I do not believe you can be well taught without academic selection. Without selection you sink to the LCD in every class. Cameron is proposing academic selection in every subject in every school. If a child is behind at 11, and improves at 12 or 13, they can move up a set. If their only shot is the 11 plus...

If DC's policy excluded academic selection I would fight it tooth and claw. It absolutely doesn't.

I'm sure most of us engaged in this debate have at times wanted to (metaphorically of course) get the other side by the shoulders and shake them to wake them up.

ConHome's editorials are mostly fair and balanced, but the comments simply aren't. And what I worry about is these comments quoted in the press and given air time on news shows. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Except luckily it doesn't, because we are actually doing extremely well in the polls during Labour's honeymoon.

I apologise, Ed, if I was short with you. I intended to appear short with the commenters instead. ConHome is a wonderful site. But this could be really damaging to the party. In honour I cannot stand by and let that happen. The voice of the Cameron-supporting majority (cfConHome surveys) can't be drowned out.

And when you get a poll like this after a week of "grammarsgate", a poll that exposes the "We're all doomed under DC" brigade for what they are, this is the time to comment.

[Tory T]

"That was the leadership briefing against Brady, not him against them, and still less the 'core vote' activists briefing against anyone"

Act, you really put me in a tough position with this one. Whilst I think it's fair to attack factions (impersonal) I would never speak ill of a fellow Conservative, much less any elected Conservative official. I gather Graham Brady MP is well-liked and well respected in the PCP and I too genuinely respect him for his service and all he has done for the party.

Treading very very delicately I ask you to consider the events prior to the briefings by CCHQ. And that is all I can say about that.

[ACT]

'Tory T', by all means attack your straw man (those people claiming we're doomed under Cameron - plainly we're not). But when you've worked through all of those emotions, do try for once to face up to what the Leadership gets wrong. And it's *not* simply a case of, not modernising, further, faster, harder. It's a very valid point, when Labour are in disarray, rudderless and mired in 3rd term blues, to observe that, they were *miles* ahead in your beloved polls, and still didn't win in 1992. We have a long way to go, and despite proclaiming yourself the leader's best friend (hereafter LBF) on this site, I don't think your advice does him that much good. STOP attacking the grass roots, they're not the problem, they're not what voters judge parties on. They judge parties on what they see of their leaderships.

[Denis Cooper]

Two threads this morning, and both have quickly gravitated towards education policy ... not just grammar schools, but education in general ... I think I'll stick with the other thread, where TomTom has posted a fascinating excerpt from a teachers' website which shows why education is politics, and why some see "grammar schools" not so much as a "totemic", but a "symptomatic", issue.

So my last contribution here is to point that Tory T acknowledges that this poll asked a question about "schools", not about "grammar schools", and the result was that 41% would trust Cameron to improve schools, while 40% would trust Brown - not a significant difference, but a depressing picture in both respects - and to agree with him that Cameron and Hague should start talking loud and clear about the EU summit on June 21/22 and THE ABSOLUTE NEED FOR
A REFERENDUM ON WHATEVER NEW TREATY EVENTUALLY EMERGES.

[EML]

Good point, Denis, i'll agree with you on that one! Blair's going to get away with murder if we're not careful.

[Tory T]

ACT: absolutely my last post for a few hours, promise - but the polls back in 1996 and prior used different systems and were not accurate at all, which is why they got 1992 so wrong. Today's polls are. If polls interest you as they do me can I recommend to you http//www.politicalbetting.com - anyway I think you would enjoy it, it has posters from across the spectrum and measured debate.

Denis Cooper - glad we can agree on that. We need to fight what is happening with Merkel's constitution by another name. Nothing matters more right now.

[ACT]

'Tory T', if you know something, say it, otherwise, for pity's sake, do drop this act of, 'I know nothing, I am a humble observer'. You really are stretching credulity to insinuate that whilst of course you are very far from being a minor member of the court, you at the same time are, somehow, privy to such dreadful (and top secret sensitive) information about Brady that you dare not even post it under your webname.

[Bradford]

Locally (W Yorkshire) the last local elections were disappointing but I put part of that down to poor/weak orgaisation,

That organisation William Hague is supposed to be rebuilding ?

The turnout was low but the turnout usually is low. The candidates are uninspiring and their leaflets are crass ranting on about things like planning rules for brownfield sites which are nothing to do with local government - they are NATIONAL issues......and the whole planning appeals process overriding local authorities was put in place by the Thatcher Government.

The local elections were treated as as referendum on the national Conservative Party and the verdict in West Yorkshire was not complimentary

[Tory T]

Aaargh.

I am not referring to top secret information. Very well then - I am referring to the fact that a front bencher (without choosing to resign his front bench position) decided to go to the press TWICE and attack the policy of Cameron and Willets, a policy announced when DC took office. As he stated in his resignation letter he had known that Cameron would build no new grammars. Yet he chose to attack that position publicly not once but twice. The first time as I understand it the matter was dealt with internally. The second open act of defiance was his choice.

I do believe that if a front bencher feels in conscience they cannot support the leadership then they should resign rather than brief against.

[TomTom]

much less any elected Conservative official.

He is NOT a Conservative Official He is a Member of Parliament and you should be cited for contempt of Parliament for asserting otherwise - he is a Constituency MP

[Joseph]

Apologies in advance if my figure is wrong, but is there not a margin for error of 4% and is this figure really good news at this stage of the cycle?

I seem to remember Blair was winning every thing in sight and was miles ahead in the polls at the same stage.

[ACT]

Hmmmn, your breakfast has I think gone cold 'Tory T'. Brady disagreed with the leadership, honourably enough many of us would have thought, the leadership briefed against him. Dishonourably enough, some of us might have thought.

And I'll say it again, I'm slightly at a loss to understand your routine 'Tory T': on the one hand, you vehemently deny inside knowledge of what the leadership are doing (for the idea that you're a leadership stooge rightly offends you), on the other hand you, for example, 'understand [the] matter was dealt with internally'. Double hmmmmms all round.

[Tory T]

My breakfast is getting cold because you keep posting!

ACT everything I am saying is in the public domain. Where do I understand this from? Erm...ConHome who wrote about it! Perhaps I am a more loyal reader of the site than you? :)

No, Brady did not resign. He went to the press whilst a frontbencher and spoke out against the leadership. He ought to have resigned first. It was dealt with by the whips privately (source: the not very secret ConHome and Iain Dale). Despite the private warning he then went back to the press just as the issue was starting to die away - again, he chose not to resign, but although a front bencher, to brief against the leadership anyway and stir up a dying debate.

I think it was wrong of him to do so. He always had the option of principled resignation, although the question would remain as to why he accepted the policy when he took up his post in the first place. Collective responsibility means something.

Following his second outing to the press, as a frontbencher, CCHQ announced he would not survive the reshuffle. Only at that point (reported by ConHome as a sacking) did he, in fact, resign.

I am sure Graham Brady MP is well-respected, well liked and able. That he has served the party and the country very well indeed and that he brings much to the table. I don't know him but I do respect him as a Tory MP and one able enough to be promoted and enjoy the confidence of Michael Howard, for example. I do not attack him personally, I hope, but I must say that it is just wrong as a fontbencher to go to the press to trash the leadership. You can fight internally and privately or you can resign on principle. Whilst I admire and respect Graham Brady, he was wrong in this case.

[Tory T]

I think the brackets did something to that post. I wrote that I was turning off my computer. I wish all a good summer's Sunday.

[David Belchamber]

I did say that I wouldn't post again on the grammar school debate but I think that an extract from yesterday's Telegraph should provide the final comment:

"His core point remains that grammar schools are a red herring in the education debate. No grammar schools are likely to close under a future Tory government; perhaps one or two will open, but the overwhelming emphasis of education policy will be on incorporating the grammar school ethos of excellence and competition into a new model of state education".

That is good enough for me - if that is what Cameron and Willetts also believe! Mind you, I wouldn't mind if Cameron apologised for having called me "delusional".

[Richard]

"Sink secondary moderns is exactly, exactly what happens when the best children go to grammars."

Unless you convert them into technical schools geared towards vocational education for those of a less academic mind.

[Thatcherite Revolutionary]

Tory T is clearly a CCHQ troll. He or she writes long posts to support the ludicrous Conservative position (it is not worthy of being called a policy) on grammar schools.

I went to a comprehensive school and was streamed in every subject. The problem was that we still had the scum bullying and intimidating brighter pupils when they could.

I will not be lectured on education by a rich Old Etonian who

- has never had to pay off a mortgage on his three houses
- asked his uncle, as equerry to the Queen, to get him a job in the Research Department after being rejected initially
- has only "worked" at CCO and in public relations
- expects the taxpayer to fund the care of his disabled son (via the NHS) despite the vast wealth of his and his wife's families who have lots of large houses, furniture and paintings worth tens of millions.

This grammargate farce is the Cameron equivalent of Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake". Off with his head and on with the Thatcher Revolution - Vouchers for Victory!

[Editor]

Tory T: "The voice of the Cameron-supporting majority (cfConHome surveys) can't be drowned out."

The survey is now closed and I'll be posting the first results at 9pm tonight.

Your comments to site are always welcome btw. I don't always agree with them but they are always amongst the most interesting.

[TomTom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1169869.stm

William Hague has said that the Conservatives are the party that will bring back grammar schools in England.

He said his "free schools" policy would involve all schools being able to set their own criteria for admissions - with some being wholly selective.

In an article in the Daily Telegraph, the Tory leader said the prime minister's new promise that children would be "educated to the fullest extent of their ability" was "code for selection by aptitude".

Mr Hague's intervention continues the fallout over Labour's green paper on the future of secondary schools in England, published on Monday.

This produced widespread reports of "the death of the comprehensive" - prompted in large part by a remark by the prime minister's official spokesman that the days of the "bog standard comprehensive" were over.

Teachers' unions said this had offended many of their members.

The system which had "let down a large part of a whole generation of children" would continue if Labour were re-elected, he said.

The green paper limited selection to 10% of pupils in less than half of state schools - the specialist schools - "a tiny proportion".

He accused Tony Blair of "a piece of hypocrisy breathtaking even by his standards" in claiming that the battle over grammar schools is "largely resolved".

A Tory education secretary would let all schools specialise and set their own admissions policy.

"Some schools will wish to select part of their intake; others will wish to be wholly selective.

[Traditional Tory]

Thirteen frantic posts by Tory T this morning. Is he hoping to drown out the Cameron-sceptic majority?

That claim to be 'Tory Thatcherite' was clearly made very much with tongue in cheek. He should rename himself '"Tory" C'

Let's respond to his first post

Don't listen to a bunch of ukip voters dominating an online Conservative forum.

There's no proof that more than one or two regular posters are UKIP supporters. Anyway, even if the premise is correct, why aren't their voices drowned out by ranks of loyal Cameroons rather than by one man posing - Beau Geste style - as the Cameroon army?

Voters do not want the majority of children confined to sink secondary moderns.

I don't recall that any poster here ever argued for such a policy. Straw men proliferate when the Cameroons have their backs against the wall.

Voters can see past the teeth gnashing of the "core vote Tories"

All the voters currently see is the Tory Party in disarray, thanks to Cameron and Willetts.

WE HAVE RETAINED OUR LEAD ON EDUCATION IN THE INTERNALS OF THIS POLL.

By one percentage point. Very impressive!

Do not be fooled into thinking that ConHome, excellent as it is, is in any way representative of "the grassroots", officially or unofficially.

Would you care to direct our attention to the blog that fulfills this requirement? If it doesn't exist, why not?

The Observer polled constituency chairman and found that more than two thirds support you, not Graham Brady, on grammar schools.

Sadly, these days more than ever constituency chairmen are frequently relatively inexperienced but nevertheless ambitious members of their associations, so this doesn't surprise.

This is an absolute defeat for the Core Vote Tories on this issue.

Don't talk rubbish. Not long ago the resident Cameroons were in ecstacies about a lead of 10%+ and rising. Now it seems that any lead will do.

Labour's honeymoon will not begin until Brown takes over and is in a position to make his mark on his party and the country.

However a 54%/29% lead on competence and 45%/43% lead as 'Better Prime Minister' gets him off to a flying start.

[Richard]

"4. WE HAVE RETAINED OUR LEAD ON EDUCATION IN THE INTERNALS OF THIS POLL."

Weird, I thought a poll the other day said voters were keener on Labour's education policies!

That said, aside from the grammar school debacle, Willetts did have some decent things to say on discipline and traditional teching methods. While it would be better to give schools more autonomy over such matters, as long as we have a top-down system of regulations it is better that those regulations be based on tried and proven methods.

[David Bullingdon]

Cameron was doing very well without any policies, but as soon as he tried to introduce one open war broke out in the ranks. Better to stay policy free.

[Traditional Tory]

Just working my way through the Sunday Telegraph a little late after an extended service and Christian Aid breakfast for Trinity Sunday.

I see Tory T's one-sided analysis of the latest poll does not mention that 51% expect Labour to win the next general election.

Only 34% think Cameron can make a breakthrough.

Seems he's branded a loser already.

[ACT]

Tory T, no one other than you thinks Brady briefed (ie covertly agitated, smeared, negatively/personally knocked) - he *publicly* disagreed. Does, I wonder, anyone other than you think that (a) the leadership didn't brief against him? & that (b) their briefing against him wasn't a wrong, self-harming thing to do? Either, Tory T, you think the leadership comes away from this whole episode with lessons to learn, or, I repeat as politely as I can, you've substituted fanatical, toe the line loyalty for reasonable comment.

And I'm still at a loss to fully understand lines from Tory T such as him, "treading very very delicately I ask you to consider the events prior to the briefings by CCHQ. And that is all I can say about that" - are you a Cameroon Pimpernel or not? Do you know stuff you're bravely sitting on for the sake of party unity. Or are you the ever so 'umble reader of CH who only knows what the UKIP trolls and Christian fundies (I've got that right, haven't I? That's the current 'Roon attack of preference, isn't it?) tell him on these threads?

[Why don't you use your own name instead of hiding behind an anonymous one?]

Nuconlab 69%
Lib Dems 21%

Looks like Nuconlab are going to romp home, but won't they have to deselect some of their chosen candidates?

[Tory T]

Act, I would have preferred not to spell out objections to what Mr. Brady decided to do. When I asked you to think about what went before, I was only referring to the two press briefings he offered although a front bencher. I thought that was obvious, evidently not.

And no, I don't think it was at all an off the record briefing. The newspapers I read that day said that a "CCHQ press spokeswoman" had announced this. That seems fairly open to me. Not "sources close to" or whatever. Nor was the announcement made selectively but was sent to all papers. You call it a "briefing", to me it read as an "announcement". And I assure you (at your third time of asking) that I have no sources on this other than the same ones you do, the press and ConHome/Iain Dale.

I repeat I respect Graham Brady and perhaps ought not to have answered you at all. Impossible to comment on collective responsibility and the need to resign instead of go to the press without mentioning his name. It seems so ludicrous to me to criticise the leadership for what it announced when the frontbencher in question had - without choosing to resign - gone to the press to complain about the leadership's policy not once but twice.

But I suppose we are doomed to differ, and I think I've said all I'm going to on that. Mr. Brady enjoys the confidence and admiration of people I respect like Michael Howard, so I hope he can return to the front bench before too long.

[Ted]

ACT - what exactly is providing the Times with his own statistics, a week or so after being reminded of collective responsibility and asked to stick to his brief, if not briefing? To quote from the Times on 28th May "Graham Brady, the Shadow Europe Minister and a former grammar school pupil, has passed data to The Times showing that GCSE results are significantly better in areas that have an element of selective education – with ethnic minority children benefiting most."

Has passed data (later "he passed a letter") - that sounds like briefing to me. This after he had been reminded of his responsibilities as a front bencher. Now he is a backbencher he's free to speak his mind - though his approach has been destructive rather than constructive.

The fact that the Chief Whips action was briefed to the press by the party's chief spokesman was perhaps unwise, though to have said nothing about the dressing down could have been taken as a sign of weakness.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Tory T - if I was you I'd do what I've done, join the silent majority who find the rabid posturing of the posters on this site both hilarious and unrepresentative.

I only post occasionally now, usually to annoy the ones who deserve it, and am happy to converse and interact with normal people in real life who understand how this country works, not people who only answer to their own inflated egos.

Out there in the country and beyond a small coterie of conservatives (and a larger percentage of others here to claim they are such) Cameron has tapped in the mainstream. These people are miles out at sea and not waving but drowning. I'm happy to let them drown.

Brady is still a disloyal fool, although, if he wrote that article a while ago he can escape with some semblance of honour. The question remains, why did he not kill the article?

[TomTom]

ACT - what exactly is providing the Times with his own statistics,

I thought they were from a Bristol University research paper.....the kind of thing Willetts should not have ignored when spinning his line to the CBI which directly conradicted what the British Chambers of Commerce had called for in April

http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/articles/17-04-07

Source: Daily Telegraph

Publication Date: 17th April 2007

Grammar schools should be re-introduced to rectify the "national disgrace" that sees half the country's young people leave school without "decent" qualifications, the director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce will proclaim today.

David Frost, speaking at the chamber's annual conference in London, will say: "Every survey we do highlights the failures of the education system.

"The fact that half our young people are leaving school without five decent GCSEs is nothing short of a national disgrace."

Mr Frost is particularly concerned about figures published last week showing that more than 1m young people in Britain are not in work or training programmes.

One in five school leavers faces a lifetime on state handouts, he will say, double the figure in Germany and France. He will reiterate the British chambers' support for the Government's introduction of diplomas, but will warn: "This is the last chance saloon.

"If this does not work; if we again fail to improve the performance of our schools, I believe it is time to look at the re-introduction of streaming at the age of 13 - to reintroduce grammar schools, the great escape for the working class in post-war Britain.

Mr Frost will also call for the return of technical schools that teach information technology, specialist engineering and science, linked to academic study.

[cleo]

The party needs to move on, support a leader who is attracting new voters by addressing the concerns of ordinary people, otherwise Brown will walk it.

[Jacob]

Just keep tearing yourselves up over Grammar Schools guys..... Labour Election Victory Number 4 is just around the corner!

[Tory T]

Cardinal Pirelli, I think you are right. I will go back to lurking and let Cameron's polls do the talking!

[Richard]

I wonder to what extent the recent infighting has resulted in us having a poll lead less than it would have been. I suspect the appearance of division rather than the specifics of policy will have done more damage.

[TomTOm]

Labour Election Victory Number 4 is just around the corner!

Posted by: Jacob | June 03, 2007 at 12:51

You are very confident, but then again Labour is better at implementing Labour policies than Cameron would be

[Richard]

"Yes let's build a grammar in every town and give the middle claases just what they want"

Seeing as they make up the majority of the country I'm not sure what's so electorally dangerous about that.

[John Dowson]

A question for all those 'traditional Tories' out there - How is tearing the party apart going to get us re-elected?
Cameron is the most widely popular Tory leader for a decade... he is trying to position the party in the centre ground (which is not unreasonable when you stop and think about it); we are consistently ahead in the polls (naturally to varying degrees as the party goes through peaks and troughs), we have done extremely well both in the May 2006 and May 2007 elections, and Cameron is trying to prevent a fourth Labour victory.
Yes there will be policies people in the party won't like (as there no doubt has been with every other Tory leader - and the staunch Thatcherites on here please note that the Iron Lady was not perfect - she made mistakes as well).
We must stay united. Obviously no-one should have to sacrifice their principles simply to support a party leader, but this row over grammar schools is being exploited by some people who have wanted to get rid of Cameron for months. They are simply using this single issue as a reason to ditch Cameron... they are trying to make it the catalyst to a rebellion - and in my view that is selfish and narrow-minded.
I'm not looking to offend people, but if this party is once again going to pull itself apart, and move away from the centre ground, then we will not have any chance of stopping Gordon Brown winning the next election.
Rant over...

[James Maskell]

I would think the common ground is a more appropriate target for us than the centre ground... The centre ground is to the left of most Britons.

[James Maskell]

And while Im at it, you say that we shouldnt be abandoning our principles in order to back the leader. Sadly that is what Cameron is calling for us to do. Localism, a key tenet of the Built to Last document, has been thrown aside in this grammar school debate.

There are other issues that more right wing members have a problem with, such as our EPP policy, the A-List, the PR campaigns that have appeared (the infamous Tosser campaign for example), giving "love and understanding" to young criminals and our economic policy particularly that on public spending and taxation.

When Thatcher went for power, there were solid foundations based on speeches and documents which had looked deeply at issues relating to Britain at the time and there was a policy framework there ready to hang policies upon. Under Cameron, weve just come up with some policies, then tried to build a framework around what had been made up. It doesnt work like that and as weve seen, confusion reigns supreme at that stage.

We should wait for our Policy Groups to report back before we announce or elaborate on major policy shifts.

[bradford]

we have done extremely well both in the May 2006 and May 2007 elections,

Friday, 5 May 2006,
In Bradford, Labour made the most gains, up six seats to 36, making them the largest party on the council after the Tories lost four seats to end with 33.

Leeds City Council Election results - 3rd May 2007

Labour gain 3 seats, two from Conservative, and 1 from Liberal Democrat

Overall vote turnout for the local elections held in Leeds on Thursday 3 May 2007 was 37.52%.

Total percentage of votes by party are as follows:

Party Percentage votes by party
Labour 32.51%
Conservative 26.82%
Liberal Democrat 19.69%
BNP 11.16%
Green 3.91%

http://www.bradford.gov.uk/asp/elections2007/overall.asp

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/index.html?swingplot05.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/index.html?swingplot05.html

[Dick Wishart]

Dear me Mr editor " more important things to do" what could be more important than educating our children.
Well done ToryT youve certainly woken them all up.

[Scotty]

"Brady is still a disloyal fool, although, if he wrote that article a while ago he can escape with some semblance of honour. The question remains, why did he not kill the article?"
Did you see his performance on Adam Boulton's Sunday programme on Sky today?
Whether you agree with Brady on grammar schools or not is irrelevant, he was downright disloyal and continued his campaign of trying to damage and undermine his leader, colleagues and his party.
I am sure every activist who lives in a constituency without a Conservative MP or a grammar school could do without his continued and deliberate attempts to do Brown's dirty work!

[Tory Teacher]

As a teacher, the idea of returning to Grammars really does scare me. I can tell you one thing, the grammar school rebels risk confining us to yet another defeat.

The staff room talk has been most negative about the Tories since the rebels reared their heads. Up until that point many of my colleagues were looking at us seriously and like it or not, we can't get back unless we build a consesus and actually get people like doctors, teachers and nurses voting for us.

[Peter Farrington]

I am an ex-Labour voter and have only voted for the Conservatives once, at the last election.

I am MORE likely to vote Conservative if there is a debate about policy and arguments about the direction the party should follow, than if, as some suggest is necessary, there is a blind and silent obedience to the diktats of the Leader.

To be honest, as someone who is looking to vote Conservative again, I don't care what Cameron's policies are if they are to be merely imposed on all members. I expect a dialogue and discussion so that what is proposed has wide support and does not merely demand sullen acceptance.

If I wanted centralising control-freakery I would vote Labour.

[Chris]

Bradford,
Leeds Central hasn't been held since 1929
Leeds East lost in 1900
Leeds North East lost in 1997
Leeds West lost in 1945
Leeds North West lost in 1997
Bradford North lost in 1987
Bradford South lost in 1922
Bradford West lost in 1974

Leeds North East and Leeds North West are the only 2 seats in the list above which we could even contemplate winning. So looking at overall council results for Leeds and Bradford aren't going to be that useful. What sort of results have we been having in the Northern wards of Leeds?

[Bradford]

Chris - the results were from the Council Elections 2006, 2007. The swing was AGAINST the Conservatives in the two largest cities in West Yorkshire.

You refer to Parliamentary Seats and I don't dispute what you say.

My point was a) why didn't the Conservative vote in Council Elections go up with the new leader ?

b) Since these two major cities showed a swing against Conservatives towards Labour, was there a realistic prospect of picking up seats in West Yorkshire - an area William Hague is supposedly revitalising ?

[Chris]

Bradford,
I can't dispute the overall swing, but thats not what is at stake here, as it's highly unlikely that the swing was uniform across all of the wards. The swings in the wards making up the two northern Leeds constituencies is what we need to be focussing on.

[Peter]

Cameron has insulted his core supporters from the beginning of his leadership.
The MacMillan/Heath pinko butskellism he favours failed the country throughout the 1950s, lost us power in 1964, and again in 1973 when Heath failed. The country was on its uppers by 1978, virtually bankrupt and run by the IMF, we couldn't bury our dead, hospitals were closed, and rubbish piled up uncollected for weeks. We were on the verge of a military coup, until the coming of the Blessed Margaret who saved us all - everyone of us- and by her example she & Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union and taught the world that the market economy and personal achievement were open to everyone, regardless of class.
How dare Cameron roll the clock back and deny the ordinary man the chance to sup with the gods. Education, after defence, is the most important ministry. Great Britain can only survive on its wits. We have to trade or die. The brightest and the best must be encouraged. Grammar schools have shown ( from DfES official figures) that all races and classes perform better across the board where academic selection exists.

Cameron's incoherent views have been totally destroyed by official 2005/2006 DfES figures that show that the percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSEs A-C incl.Maths & English is much higher in a wholly selective system:
viz:

Wholly selective/Comprehensive

Whites 49.6 //43.0
Mixed Race 57.1/ 41.3
Asian 55.9/ 44.6
Black 41.8 /32.5
Chinese 82.4 /61.2
Others 57.1/ 40.7

The 70% plus of this country who support selection are not headbangers, we can see with great clarity that the minority will always be dragged down by the majority. Standards inevitably dumb down because the brightest cannot flourish to their full potential in an environment where the majority are not academic. The answer is to pull up the 80pct, not drag down the 20pct. This is what has been achieved by the Tories in Kent because we have grammar schools, high schools and new academies working together, rather than having just one monolithic system.

Cameron and Willetts are just plain wrong and totally out of touch with the electorate, and Graham Brady is right, right, right.

Selection delivers higher results all round, as the statistics prove. We are never going to accept some half baked theories about USA style academies, which to date appear to be doing less well than bog standard comprehensives.

One can accept a different opinion if it is coherent and has facts supporting it. In Cameron's case, he is trying to tell us that a three legged greyhound is better than a four legged one.

I hope that Messrs Cameron and Willetts, before they make more ill-informed comments, will take up Paul Carter's offer (Tory leader of Kent County Councl) and see the successful but diverse system of education in Kent which should become a Tory blueprint for the whole country.

[bradford]

I can't dispute the overall swing, but thats not what is at stake here, as it's highly unlikely that the swing was uniform across all of the wards.

You again miss the point. If Cameron is the Conservative Leader who can reach the parts of the electorate other Conservative Leaders could not........why was the swing in Leeds and Bradford - the two major cities in West Yorkshire (23 Parliamentary Seats) AGAINST te Conservatives and towards LIbDems and Labour.

By all that we have heard from Jack Stone, Tory T, Rachel, etc - this is not possible.....in both 2006 and 2007 the Conservatives LOST seats and votes with its new Leader in West Yorkshire cities

[TomTom]

Wholly selective/Comprehensive

Whites 49.6 //43.0
Mixed Race 57.1/ 41.3
Asian 55.9/ 44.6
Black 41.8 /32.5

Look at this example - David Lammy MP

Lammy was born in Tottenham, a working-class area of North London, and brought up by his mother after his father left the family. He won an Inner London Education Authority choral scholarship to The King's School, Peterborough and studied for a degree in law at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, and then took a Masters degree at Harvard Law School, the first Black Briton to do so.

The school claims to be 'comprehensive' - however, twelve places are given away according to an entry examination and three are allocated according to ability in music. The other places are allocated to students going down a list of criteria, including religion and siblings already attending the school. Competition for places is fierce and this has led to some suspicions that lower-achieving students, particularly those from working class or ethnic minority backgrounds are much less likely to gain places at the school than those from middle class backgrounds.

[Traditional Tory]

Brady...was downright disloyal and continued his campaign of trying to damage and undermine his leader, colleagues and his party...his continued and deliberate attempts to do Brown's dirty work!

This from Scotty, who bleats like a lamb every time he thinks someone's getting at him.

A snarling wolf in sheep's clothing, it seems, when 'Roon Gleichschaltung is under threat.

Patriots should be under no illusions. The Roons will fight like caged rats as their man goes down - as he surely will.

Prepare for one of the dirtiest scraps in the history of our party.

[Traditional Tory]

As a teacher, the idea of returning to Grammars really does scare me.

Why? don't you think you're up to teaching at a Grammar School?

The staff room talk has been most negative about the Tories since the rebels reared their heads.

How very 'retro'. At the Comp where my wife
teaches 'staff room culture' has gone the way of boozy business lunches in my own profession.

But I gather when a few of them find themselves together between lessons politics is not a favoured subject for discussion.

[John Dowson]

Traditional Tory... people don't have to be on the right of the Tory party to be patriots (which is what you imply).
Peter, you make some interesting observations. You say that the era of Tory dominance when MacMillan was PM was a failure, which lost us power in '64 (when Home was leader); but during that period the party performed ever so slightly better than in 1997, 2001 and 2005... you are aware of that aren't you? And a party is bound to lose power at some point in a democracy of course, hence our loss in 1964 and our trouncing in 1997.
Times change, the party adapts to the times; it's done so before and it's doing it again. If the party had not changed over the past hundred and fifty-odd years it would be unelectable. Labour had to change to win, the Liberals (in their various forms) have had to adapt as well. Our party needs to adapt. It's as simple as that.
There may come a point in the future when the ideology of right-wing Thatcherism will once again be the dominant force in this country, but it is not presently the election winning force it once was. In many ways I am traditional in my outlook, but I am also prepared to accept reform of the party because I recognise it is needed.

[TomTom]

unless we build a consesus and actually get people like doctors, teachers and nurses voting for us.

Since 70% undergraduates studying Physics come from Independent Schools; 65% A-Level Modern Language Exams are taken in Independent Schools; the bulk of Medical Students come from Independent Schools; a large proportion of Athletes and Cricketers and Rugby Players come from Independent Schools; 70% leading barristers; 54% top 100 journalists; 42% Front Benchers in House of Commons;

BUSINESS

31 per cent of the current leaders of FTSE 100 companies went to fee-paying schools. Another 31 per cent went to grammar schools and 20 per cent comprehensive. Of the 1,130 board-level posts in the FTSE 100 companies,

If you really want to attract doctors and teachers you'll have to advertise in the magazines of the fee-paying schools they send their children to. In fact it is funny just how many teachers send their children to Independent Schools

[Observer]

And a party is bound to lose power at some point in a democracy of course, hence our loss in 1964

That had much to do with Macmillan butchering his Cabinet most of whom were related to him and not just as Old Etonians but as members of the Cavendish Family.

He had also lost his Chancellor - was it Selwyn Lloyd? There was real pressure for devaluation but Macmillan would not bite the bullet and it was left to Wilson to do so after intial hesitation and the 1966 election.

The British economy was shot by 1962

[jorgen]

How is tearing the party apart going to get us re-elected?

Ask Cameron as he is the one changing the structure of the membership by replacing real Conservative members with floating Lib Dimmies. A broad church can stretch only so far before it breaks.

[Richard]

"And a party is bound to lose power at some point in a democracy of course, hence our loss in 1964"

The interesting thing is that the Tories almost won!

[Dick Wishart]

Peter, I agree with a lot of what you say but we still did not build/open any grammar schools in fact we closed them

[Yet Another Anon]

I attack Core Vote Tories. They are I daresay honourable people. But they have lost us three elections.
A political party is really nothing without a core vote, lose that and if a government of that party comes to an end it is likely the party of government would also come to an end or nearly come to an end.

"And a party is bound to lose power at some point in a democracy of course, hence our loss in 1964"
No government lasts for ever, even the Chinese & Egyptian dynasties came to an end eventually.

[Jacob]

"I'm not looking to offend people, but if this party is once again going to pull itself apart, and move away from the centre ground"

Of course it is! That is what the Tories do best! They don't want to win elections, they want to win the arguments. I was starting to worry that Labour would loose power, but the Grammer Schools fiasco just shows how easy it will be for us to tear you apart in the next two years. All we need to do is start debates of issues like Tax etc and you tear yourselves apart. Come on guys - its all too easy for us!

[anon]

You pick your poll - you take your choice.
(There have been some recent and current polls that show Dave and the Tories not doing to well even when they put Gordon onto the mix)

[Yet Another Anon]

"I'm not looking to offend people, but if this party is once again going to pull itself apart, and move away from the centre ground"
The press always talk as if a political party trying to place itself in the mainstream would guarantee success, the Alliance tried that in the 1980's and 1992 and even in 1983 they didn't overhaul Labour.

There are now 3 Liberal parties dominating the national scene at Westminster, people who are not Liberals are going to be reluctant to back Liberal parties and rather want something with a much harder edge, voters are not automatans turning out in block for one party label or another regardless of policy, if a party shifts it's position out of electoral expediency and not out of principle it can easily end up both losing it's existing support and failing to enthuse others whereas a strongly argued case can shift enough mindsets to swing things that way.

[Matt Wright]

Sorry Ed, there is a problem with a number of posters on this site whose aim is to damage the Conservative party and they post dozens of times a day in some cases. They have been doing this for many months and long before the grammar school issue. It is NOT a case that we don't want debate but often they are not debating, they are looking for every way they can to attack the party and the leadership of the party. From time to time they drop their guard and refer to being supporters of UKIP and even BNP. Please see what is going on here. Again I repeat sensible debate is fine but some on here are not engaging in that but have their own agenda,

Matt

[Yet Another Anon]

Why does ConHome think Margaret Thatcher and John Major opened no new grammar schools?
Margaret Thatcher hated Grammar schools seeing them as Socialist, she closed more as Education Secretary than any other Education Secretary, her reforms in the 1980's were aimed to replace Grammar Schools and in her books she has continued to argue against them - rather than her not opening more Grammar Schools because she had something better to do she was happy to work with LEA's to close the remainder down or convert them to other types of school, and in fact if she had thought she could have got away with it I'm sure she would have ended the existence of Grammar Schools in one go.

John Major pledged a Grammar School in every town and actually the closures continued in his time as PM although they slowed, LEA's that want to close Grammar Schools have been very successful at this even in the bitter teeth of local opposition because the legislation is very much on their side in this.

Edward Heath didn't appear to have had much of an opinion on the matter one way or another or he wouldn't have let Margaret Thatcher run about closing them when he was PM.

[John Reeks]

The polling seems to be providing some comfort recently. I suspect the news would be far worse without the grammar schools row - which I still believe has had a POSITIVE effect on party ratings. I really think that if the past two weeks had been dominated by Gordon Brown's transition then we would be in a far worse situation.

[Yet Another Anon]

The original speech created a division in a situation in which very few people actually expect any of the 3 main parties if in government to actually open a new Grammar School regardless of what they say their policy on it is.

The nation is divided fairly evenly on the issue and there are still many Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters who favour Grammar schools.

What has been said since the original statement simply confuses the issue thoroughly because it is at odds with what was said originally and this doesn't reflect well on David Willetts or David Cameron, because what it means is that either their original policy statement was bungled or that they cannot face up to the consequences of difficult decisions.

[Ted]

Matt Wright,
Don't know if you heard David Mellor on 5live this morning and Iain Dale's great attack on the man afterwards (Iain has a replay on his blog). Iain isn't a Cameroon by any stretch of the imagination but his defense of Cameron and his strategy was very good.

Reason I mention it was that any of the damaging posters you mention could be Mellor! Any time Xxxxx posts the usual vitriol just think of that face, glasses and smug look and imagine it's Mellor posting. He is such a traditional tory is Mellor, a real conservative :-)