On Friday I warned that this would be 'fasten our seat belts' time. I hope you have clunk-clicked...
A poll in tomorrow's Observer - from Ipsos-MORI - puts Labour on 39% (up 4% on last month) and the Tories on 36% (down 1%). The LibDems are down 3% to just 15%.
The detail of the poll also has the capacity to discourage. 40% of MORI's respondents thought Brown would make the best Prime Minister compared to 22% for David Cameron.
Here's Friday's 'Hold on tight' card again...
SUNDAY MORNING UPDATE: DETAILS OF THE POLL
MORI also have a record of volatility.
Posted by: bluepatriot | June 23, 2007 at 21:43
Not surprised or discouraged by this, must admit my money was on Mori putting Labour ahead first, also expect Populus to follow.
http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention/mori/
Tim, do you know when the field work was carried out because Mori polls can sometimes be a little bit older than others?
Posted by: Scotty | June 23, 2007 at 21:44
Will be interesting to compare this one to the ICM & YouGove ones due later this week - after Brown becomes leader and after the EU summit; will the Brown bounce overcome the Blair retreat?
Posted by: Ted | June 23, 2007 at 21:44
We shouldn't worry about this poll. There is bound to be a bounce, but I can't see it surviving.
Posted by: Jaz | June 23, 2007 at 21:45
Don't know about the fieldwork sorry, Scotty.
I'd also draw people's attention to this video in which MORI's Ben Page suggests that we won't fully be able to properly again judge the state of headline public opinion until very early next year.
Posted by: Editor | June 23, 2007 at 21:54
If polling is in some way connected up to the propaganda of the media, which I believe it is, then they would not be beyond using polls to give Brown a boost, when he's expected to stand firm and push through the Constitution.
If they are using postal vote fraud to boost figures in actual elections, I cannot see it would be too hard to do similar with polling. Polls could be easily used to cover over tricky moments for leaders that have been bought with their willingness to agree to power being exercised in Brussels.
It was expected and predicted. It has happened exactly as expected. Real events are not like that. This is window dressing for Gordon.
Posted by: tapestry | June 23, 2007 at 21:54
Indeed, CH is right to leave MORI out of their poll of polls. Keep those belts tight.
Posted by: Ay Up | June 23, 2007 at 21:57
Now you have told us to fasten our seat belts Tim can you ask the stewards to hurry up with the drinks trolley. After reading this post I need something strong.
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | June 23, 2007 at 22:14
Time for a Leadership Election?
Posted by: Gunther | June 23, 2007 at 22:19
This is good news, surely? A few more polls like this, and we can get rid of Cameron and replace him with a proper Conservative who will focus on the real issues, like tax cuts and withdrawal from the EU.
The good work done over grammar schools is clearly starting to pay off. A bit more of us real Conservatives standing up for our party and his days are numbered.
Posted by: ConHeart | June 23, 2007 at 22:29
ConHeart at 22:29
I spy a troll, Mr Editor!
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | June 23, 2007 at 22:32
Cameron is already fighting back. If you fail to support him, you will lose this battle.
He said in Tooting 'the phoney war is over (with blair going). the battle of britain is about to begin.'
A Churchillian echo might be appropriate, but really this will be a story of a David against Goliath. The EU is a vast and powerful opponent. Cameron has few weapons as the media is rigged against him. It was a single slingshot that killed Goliath. Again somehow the weak must defeat the powerful.
Posted by: tapestry | June 23, 2007 at 22:38
It's the beginning of the end. We're doomed.
Posted by: Tandy | June 23, 2007 at 22:40
Completely normal on the eve of the Brown takeover. Nothing to sweat for at least two months.
Posted by: Tory T | June 23, 2007 at 22:41
40% of MORI's respondents thought Brown would make the best Prime Minister compared to 22% for David Cameron.
How profound.....60% don't think Brown makes a good Prime Minister compared to 78% who think Cameron does not
Posted by: TomTom | June 23, 2007 at 22:50
Yes Tom Tom but 40% wins an election, 22% does not. The end of nigh.
Posted by: Tandy | June 23, 2007 at 22:53
At least our support isn't shifting decisively to Labour; it seems that a combination of Ming's leadership and Blair's departure is causing those who switched from Labour to the Liberals over Iraq to return to their original allegiance.
Posted by: CDM | June 23, 2007 at 22:56
Yes Tom Tom but 40% wins an election, 22% does not. The end of nigh.
Posted by: Tandy | June 23, 2007 at 22:53
Brown won an election - in 2005 - against a campaign run by Cameron.......
Posted by: TomTom | June 23, 2007 at 23:00
Tandy, are you familiar with the concept of the "Brown bounce"? You might want to have a look, before you post any more twaddle.
Posted by: CDM | June 23, 2007 at 23:05
I knew we were doomed when Cameron spent the Local Elections weeding gardens and filling skips.
Posted by: Tandy | June 23, 2007 at 23:07
tandy Why do we nmeed a Contest i think u should leave this party we dont need u
This is not the poll of [polls wat this shows is we need to start talking tough and gently start using more traditional Langage
Posted by: James cullis | June 23, 2007 at 23:19
I must say I'm pleased and surprised that the usual band of let's-crucify-Cameron trolls haven't waded in here, considering this is the first poll that puts us behind in ages. My faith in the sanity of the CH readership is much improved!
Posted by: Robert Simpson | June 23, 2007 at 23:29
I don't think it disloyal to say that DC himself will know himself that 'the clock' is now running.
Does anyone really believe that David Davis would have been faring worse in the polls
at this stage in the electoral cycle ?
Posted by: Aghast | June 23, 2007 at 23:36
I didn't say anything about needing a contest James. I am very pro-Cameron Robert. I just think we are doomed.
Posted by: Tandy | June 23, 2007 at 23:38
@Robert Simpson
Ours not to intrude on private grief
Posted by: Opinicus | June 23, 2007 at 23:44
Michael Portillo's ability to undermine Tory leaders really knows no limits.
Off to bed now but I'll fisk Mr P's piece in the morning.
Posted by: Editor | June 23, 2007 at 23:46
CDM is right. If you look at this poll and last weekend's YouGOv survey the Tory rating is pretty stable. What is changing is that LibDem voters are returning to Labour. End of story.
Posted by: bluepatriot | June 23, 2007 at 23:52
Editor, jealousy can be a terrible thing. With Mr. Portillo, it seems to have developed into an all-consuming passion.
Posted by: CDM | June 23, 2007 at 23:58
Can you imagine, in the run up to the 1997 election if Tony Blair had modelled himself as the "Heir to Major", he would have been laughed off the stage. A discredited Prime Minister with the morals and standards of a stray dog, and our glorious leader wants to imitate him! Then you wonder why we are behind in the polls. As long as sunshine Dave keeps talking about the "politics of happiness", and bringing in laws to punish timber yards who are not using sustainable wood, while not talking about the things that bother the ordinary people of this country, ie crime, immigration, tax and the decline of standards in politics, then Dave and his pathetic coterie of public school prefects will deserve exactly what they get at the next election. As a former party member, I voted for David Davis. Reading the opinion polls, vindication feels very bitter indeed.
Posted by: Jarod Weaver | June 24, 2007 at 00:00
Two words David Willetts
Posted by: HF | June 24, 2007 at 00:44
CDM, I'm sure jealousy has nothing to do with it. Portillo hasn't forgiven the party for not choosing him as leader, and never misses a chance to slag off people who succeeded where he failed. If he's so sure we can't govern again, why did he run for leader in 2001?
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | June 24, 2007 at 01:02
"Don't know about the fieldwork sorry, Scotty."
Tim, it will be interesting to see when it was done. I have noticed that the fieldwork can be up to a couple of weeks old.
I await your fisk of Mr Portillo tomorrow, don't hold back! I was watching him on This Week and some times his complete lack of insight and lazy analysis does explain why he never managed to get onto the final ballot for a leadership contest.
Diane Abbot maybe one of the "Usual suspects" when it came to rebelling in Blair's government, but at least she keeps some modicum of loyalty to the Labour party. No chance of Portillo ever being accused of being partisan, so an obvious choice for the beeb in their attempt to have a Conservative regular for balance.
Posted by: Scotty | June 24, 2007 at 01:06
So that's Cameron's honeymoon over already. I can't believe only 22% thought he'd make a good PM. We may as well kiss goodbye to the next general election - Brown will scrape through. So long Dave.
Posted by: James | June 24, 2007 at 01:15
"So that's Cameron's honeymoon over already. I can't believe only 22% thought he'd make a good PM"
Why on earth not?Cameron is the Tory party's Neil Kinnock.Even before this poll he was seen as less decisive and weaker than Gordon Brown.I'm afraid the Tories are about to learn the lesson learned by Labour at the 1992 election,mid term dissatisfaction with governments is both normal, and often temporary .The Tories have been getting carried away with rather modest opposition opinion poll leads half way through a mid term government,third term government.A reality check is in the post.
Posted by: D Simpson | June 24, 2007 at 03:45
Portillo's fears that Cameron has not gone far enough to the left are like the belief of some on the right that we could win if only we were more right wing. Neither approach concentrates on actually appealing to swing Lib Dem and Labour voters. The Cameron project is failing because it rightly alienates core Tory voters without really attracting any others. "Heir to Blair" when Blair is most discredited, and spin when spin is most hated. We should be at 41-45% in the polls, not below Labour; it is time for a radical change of approach.
Posted by: William MacDougall | June 24, 2007 at 06:18
Cameron is the Tory party's Neil Kinnock.
Exactly!
Portillo's fears that Cameron has not gone far enough to the left
If he goes more to the left, he was fall over the edge!
Posted by: jorgen | June 24, 2007 at 07:15
Well I am sure Margaret Thatcher would have said that it is nt a matter of right-wing or left-wing issues - but simply having the appropriate policies to address what voters see as pressing problems......and that the rest is marketing fluff.
Posted by: TomTom | June 24, 2007 at 07:30
Here come the excuses, from the same people who told us a week ago that the 'Brown Bounce' was already over. Plus the usual whinge about MORI being a duff poll (although they didn't like the last YouGov result either)
What does this poll actually tell us?
Well of course it doesn't confirm that Brown will win the next election, but it does strongly suggest that the section of the electorate from which Cameron and his supporters have been drawing comfort is utterly superficial, fickle and totally unreliable.
Possibly the most pathetic 'Roon' article of faith amounts to something along the lins of this: 'We know we can't lose, so anything that doesn't fit the preconceived pattern has to be a glitch'
I am off to read the epistle in church. If more of the believers in this palpapably false doctrine spent more time praising God and less time worshipping Dave they might perforce become better, happier and more rounded members of the human race.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 24, 2007 at 08:01
This is not by any means a good result (indeed Electoral Calculus/Baxter suggests Labour would be returned on an increased majority in an election on these figures.)
However I don't think the public are going to allow their sincerely held long-term doubts over Brown's competence and ability to disappear just because he now holds the top job.
If Brown called an election today I would be very worried as I think he would win it. If he leaves it a year and we work hard between now and then, focussing on the policies that matter (rather than the lightweight sections which no-one really cares about), then we can win it.
Posted by: Alex Fisher | June 24, 2007 at 08:34
Hey, I have doubts about Cameron, but you cannot simply call a leadership contest every time you slip behind in the polls. You may as well forget elections if that were going to be the case and just take it in turns instead!
The advice on fastening the seatbelts was good. Let Brown do his 'little boy who got the prize' routine and remember that everyone has been watching DC as leader; they have yet to watch Brown. The opportunity for a real comparison is coming and Europe is just the beginning. DC should be given the opportunity to rise to the challenge.
Posted by: Adam Tugwell | June 24, 2007 at 09:16
I'm not surprised some Liberals would switch to Brown, most of them will be traditional Labour voters who blame Blair for Iraq.
Posted by: Simon Newman | June 24, 2007 at 09:31
Look at the voting intentions. Conservatives down 1%, Labour up 5%, Lib Dems down 4%.
Bearing in mind the 3% error. This means that Conservative support remains the same and Labour have taken back some supporters from the Lib Dems. Probably Labour voters who could not support Blair. That is the same message as a number of polls have been showing over the past few weeks.
As for the Leadership popularity stakes - all new party leaders produce a bounce.
Everyone needs to wait a month or so to see what happens.
Also I would not be in the least surprised if some of the comments above come from Mr Brown's spinning team.
Posted by: Top of the shot | June 24, 2007 at 09:39
This stunning surge to Labour comes as no surprise.
As a traditional, patriotic, Conservative I will always honour Tony Blair as the man who got rid of the appalling, pitiful, political dwarf John Major.
But the time comes when every great star has to walk off while some people are still clapping and for Blair that time has now come. Blair made a colossal error over Iraq, and the honours-for-cash scandal has terminated his credibility. By leaving gracefully now and facilitating the handover to Gordon Brown he is regaining the respect he deserves.
I have always been a true-blue Tory and always will be, but my old party was years ago hi-jacked by selfish careerists who did their best to wreck and ruin our county In David Cameron we see behind a smooth mask of insincerity the leader of a new generation of Alan B’stards.
For the sake of the nation it is vital that the posturing Cameron be stopped in his tracks, and that can only be achieved by a vibrant and revitalised Labour Party. As a patriotic Tory with no axe to grind in favour of any candidate, I say to Tony Blair ‘Well done! We're glad you're cleaving a clear path to power for our country’s new leader.’
Posted by: The Chieftain | June 24, 2007 at 09:46
You may as well forget elections if that were going to be the case and just take it in turns instead!
I thought that was how it worked anyway - governments got tired and exhausted and the Opposition took over.......the whole point of this thread is that Labour might revitalise so Conservative stategy of "Buggins Turn" falls flat
Posted by: CCTV | June 24, 2007 at 09:54
Ken Clarke back in the tent !!!
Where on earth do you get that idea ? This morning on Andrew Marr he attempted to scupper William Hague and welcomed the Mark2 Constitution without a referendum.
Posted by: RodS | June 24, 2007 at 10:01
This is not a left or right matter, the missing factor is the issue of competence. Grammargate, Museums etc...
In recent weeks several own goals have happened that indicated incompetence in the organisation, agreement and communication of policy.
Have the lessons been learned? I fear not. We have to be honest about this as the causes of these problems have not been addressed. The only improvement is the appointment of Andy Coulson.
1. A part time Party Chairman without a full time CEO. Francis should know better, why allow this organisational gap to continue?
2. Policy co-ordinated by another part time head who lacks political nous. Oliver Letwin is failing to run the policy discussions effectively. It is providing bullets to our opponents.
Within a matter of weeks we will be embroiled in a by election. If we fail to at least get 2nd place, then we must change the "campaign" team that Francis says he has put in place. We need to hold Francis to account for our result in Ealing Southall.
Posted by: HF | June 24, 2007 at 10:09
Why did we put Ken Clarke up to represent us on the Marr programme? He is not in the shadow cabinet.
Again an issue of incompetence. We are in a period of intense European discussions so why put him up to undermine what William said?
Posted by: HF | June 24, 2007 at 10:12
The conclusion to be drawn from what Clarke said on the Marr programme is that: Labour/Conservative what does it matter anyway - we are lucky to be in a post-democratic age with rule from Europe. Gave me absolutely no reason to think I must vote Conservative.
Posted by: Pete | June 24, 2007 at 10:23
I expect BBC chose Clarke, HF. I doubt CCHQ had anything to do with it.
Posted by: Editor | June 24, 2007 at 10:37
I suspect the BBC invited him to cause us trouble HF. It's probably the same people who have invited the odious Brown crony McGuire of the Mirror to just about every political TV and radio programme today. Where are all the Conservative commentators?
The party does choose its commentators for Any Questions and Question Time. This week it has not done us any favours. Boris made all the best points on Question Time but his buffoonish air and attempts to be funny at all times is beginning to pall with me (and it seemed the audience who laughed much less than they were supposed to).He did however manage a couple of times to prick the egos of the insufferable Hitchens brothers both of whom have been afflicted with a huge superiority complex.
Yeo was weak and useless on Any Questions.Thank God for Ruth Lea!
We should be ruthless about this. Only good performers should be allowed onto these programmes. So we should see much more of people like Gove, Rifkind, Grayling and Hague on TV and less of some of our weaker performers.
Posted by: malcolm | June 24, 2007 at 10:42
Sunday AM was always going to a Labour Love in today. They wouldn't want anyone to upset that so they invite Ken in on the weekend of a Euro summit. They played the programme out with the Red Flag!! Bias, never!!
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | June 24, 2007 at 10:44
Much of the loss of standing can be attributed to outside factors such as the natural interest and curiosity attached to a change in PM, but a good part of the loss in support is most certainly self inflicted.
That must be rectified by the time of the Party Conference or we'll find the whole situation spiralling downwards.
Posted by: Old Hack | June 24, 2007 at 10:45
we're forgetting something here - Labour's surge is largely at the expense of the Lib Dems
Our rating is drifting down very slowly -- rather more slowly than we deserve after the grammar school fiasco
While all eyes are on PM Brown, the leadership should use the next few weeks to...
a)move heavyweights into the front line shad cab positions
b)get a properly resourced and fully dedicated team in place to manage the policy process
c)break open the Etonian inner circle -- co-opting new advisors with fresh perspectives
In this period of restructuring the membership must give the leadership its full support... mostly by keeping quiet
Posted by: Erasmus | June 24, 2007 at 10:53
I must agree with Malcolm, and have wondered why the Conservative party continuously put up a troop of numpties to front and speak for the party on programs like Question Times and Any Questions. But as much as I would like to see the back of Yeo, Maude and others who are unable to eloquently put the Conservative case, care must be taken who they replace them with, for new blood like Osborne also seems accident prone and most likely to be found with his foot in his mouth or taking the Conservative party up dead ends, like the heir to Blair.
Posted by: Iain | June 24, 2007 at 11:03
In this period of restructuring the membership must give the leadership its full support... mostly by keeping quiet
Really? I was under the impression that we were still a democratic party.
It seems Erasmus has other ideas. Wishful thinking on his part, or does he know something we don't?
My advice to him is that 'relaunches' are almost invariably a bad idea.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 24, 2007 at 11:09
I expect BBC chose Clarke, HF. I doubt CCHQ had anything to do with it.
Posted by: Editor | June 24, 2007 at 10:37
I thought it had something to do with
“Democracy Task Force”, headed by Kenneth Clarke, with a mandate to consider reforms to help restore public trust in politics. It will consider ways to improve the workings of government and address apathy and alienation with the political process.
http://www.cameronleadership.co.uk/category/constitution/
Posted by: TomTom | June 24, 2007 at 11:30
Despite the adverse publicity of a few weeks ago, the time to worry is not yet. If, when all the policy groups have reported, Labour is still ahead in the polls, then we will have a problem.
For the immediate future, a lot more space needs devoting to Brown's failures as chancellor; there were many.
We also need to keep reminding the public that Brown was at the heart of a very ineffectual government and he cannot be let off the hook now simply by changing direction. If Blair was making wrong decisions, why didn't Brown object at the time - or even resign?
Posted by: David Belchamber | June 24, 2007 at 11:30
to keep reminding the public that Brown was at the heart of a very ineffectual government
If you go on doing this you will bore the voters to death. Accentuate the Positive !
Posted by: TomTom | June 24, 2007 at 11:32
If, when all the policy groups have reported, Labour is still ahead in the polls, then we will have a problem.
On past form, the party will take a battering every time a policy group reports (or more likely is leaked to the press)
Yet another disastrous gimmick.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 24, 2007 at 11:36
David Belchamber, yes I would agree more should have been made of Gordon Brown's failure as Chancellor, as I say 'should have', its a failure of George Osborne that not much has been done to question the economic legacy of Gordon Brown. Now regretfully its too late , for Gordon Brown has gone to his coronation, without his legacy as Chancellor being challenged.
Posted by: Iain | June 24, 2007 at 11:40
A few more polls like this, and we can get rid of Cameron and replace him with a proper Conservative who will focus on the real issues, like tax cuts and withdrawal from the EU.
And if this was done at this point the media and political opponents would say that the Conservative Party had moved to changing their leader every 2 years and that soon it would be yearly, whoever took over they would be hampered by being seen as merely having been put in place in a desperate cynical bid for power at any cost, and it would be felt that the Conservative Party was unleadable, this is why David Cameron is secure at least this side of the General Election as Conservative leader.
There will be news reports saying all kinds of things, and polls seemingly disheartening and others encouraging for various people, but opinion polls especially mid-term ones especially immediately after leadership changes are very unreliable - it always seemed far and away most likely that Labour would revive up to the General Election. The Conservative Party will be looking at making progress in votes and seats, but Labour is still on course to win another comfortable majority now that the tide to the Liberal Democrats has reversed.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | June 24, 2007 at 11:47
Ken Clarke was appointed by Cameron presumably to keep the peace. As he has no intention of following party policy, but is setting up as an alternative voice to Cameron, surely he should be sent to the back benches, where he can sulk in style like Ted Heath.
Posted by: Tapestry | June 24, 2007 at 11:53
I take it from the tone of the debate that nobody thinks Andy Coulson can make a difference here?
Posted by: John | June 24, 2007 at 11:58
I take it from the tone of the debate that nobody thinks Andy Coulson can make a difference here?
Andy who?
Ah yes...I remember...
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 24, 2007 at 12:26
The best PM rating is taken from all those naming a party (not those who are certain to vote) which inevitably favours Labour.
I would guess that pollsters like ICM and Yougov would put Brown ahead on this measure, but only by 2 or 3%.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 24, 2007 at 12:40
"This is good news, surely? A few more polls like this, and we can get rid of Cameron and replace him with a proper Conservative who will focus on the real issues, like tax cuts and withdrawal from the EU."
And then you consign the Conservative Party to the scrap-heap of UK politics because the public are not interested in such issues - leaving the EU would certainly lose votes.
The threat to the Party is not Cameron but people like ConHeart. In some of the recent polling I've seen, on a left-middle-right political spectrum, Labour and Brown are seen as being fairly centre, albeit a little left. Cameron is a bit more right. But the Conservative party is at 50% on the right balance. It's no surprise that this is dragging the poll voting down. It was Cameron that was bolstering it for months because he is seen as being more moderate. Now it is believed he is not pulling the Party with him, the vote is sagging. No one wants to vote for a party that is disunified, as the Conservatives are coming across.
The Conservatives have two choices. Win an election by accepting Cameron's proposals and UNIFY BEHIND THE LEADER DULY ELECTED, or have hard-line policies that few apart from the faithful will vote for = 5, maybe 10 more years of Opposition. Under current political trends, another Hague, IDS or Howard will not win. Anything else is a combination of wishful thinking and denial.
Seriously, the Party cannot be the play-thing of reactionaries. If it is, you guys will have to wait until all those people have dropped dead to get back into Number 10!
Posted by: Raj | June 24, 2007 at 13:29
Raj,
Cameron leads the party, he doesn't own it.
Its activists, mostly unpaid, are not conscripts to be ordered around and blindly obey order with which they not only disagree but many of which run counter to their inbuilt beliefs and tenets.
You don't get respect and unqualified subservience just because you become the leader, you have to eatn it via your deeds and performance in the job.
He's failing a significant section of the party faithful in this respect.
Until HE sorts this out HE will have failed to engender the unity he so badly needs and which is equally clearly, seeping away.
HE started this whole bloody silly modernisation regime, only HE can stop it.
Posted by: Aghast | June 24, 2007 at 13:56
Having looked at the MORI poll, I am surprise that nobody has commented that when asked how they voted in 2005, only 20% said they voted Conservative but 35% said they voted Labour. Well 35% was about the Labour vote, but the Conservatives polled around 32%, so where was the survey held? Sounds spectacularly dodgy to me.
Posted by: Mark Williams | June 24, 2007 at 13:58
The threat to the Party is not Cameron but people like ConHeart.
Well Raj, Conheart was almost certainly a tongue-in-cheek troll but assuming you are genuine (??) your Corporal Jones style monologue is likely to have much the same effect as screaming 'Don't panic!' in a crowded theatre.
Fortunately, some of us walked out long before the stampede.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 24, 2007 at 14:02
" only 20% said they voted Conservative but 35% said they voted Labour"
Very worrying.This is known as false recall when voters are too embarrassed to admit they voted for a particular party.This false recall usually affects and unpopular government, not an opposition on its way to number 10.
Posted by: Cheshire Tory | June 24, 2007 at 14:07
Traditional Tory - "Fortunately, some of us walked out long before the stampede"...
Fortunately for whom?
What greater good is served by this "save yourself" attitude?
Posted by: Happy Tory | June 24, 2007 at 14:13
Raj, accepting what proposals from Cameron? Formulating policy on what is acceptable to the BBC, Guardian newspaper and Poly Toybbee? Though just expired, the reason I have been a member of the Conservative party is because of certain values and beliefs I hold, and the wish to see these values developed as policy and implemented. I have no interest in being a member of a political party to win power but to not implement these values. Gaining power might be all to Cameron, its not to me, its a complete waste of time and money to me if we just get another version of New Labour, and that is what is so disappointing about Cameron, for rather than get a person who could eloquently express what I thought were Conservative vales in inclusive language, we have instead got someone who just wants to copy Blair and New Labour.
Posted by: Iain | June 24, 2007 at 14:13
14.07:
Not so, it shows the flaws in the fieldwork for the poll. It's not difficult to seek correct numbers of people in order to make an accurate poll. The only reason this poll was structured in the way it was, was because MORI knoew it would grab the headlines.
Posted by: Afleitch | June 24, 2007 at 15:43
I see no reason for any concern whatsoever from this poll. Brown is receiving a bounce as David Belchamber pointed out above, big deal lets worry about it after Labour have been ahead in all polls for 6 months. While of course the vast majority of Cameron Bashers above are trolls. Some have a point about organisation, Ken Clarke should not be able to go on Sunday AM and effectively parrot Poly Toynbee word for word in her criticism of a referendum. Even though he is correct about Maastricht etc not having referendums there was never even remotly a promise of one (unlike now) and these treaties have had a cumulative effect. So the control being extended now is far greater.
Posted by: voreas06 | June 24, 2007 at 15:54
When Ken Clarke says the electorate shouldn't be given a referendum as they wouldn't vote on the issues at hand, and that these matters should be left to an informed Parliament, it should be remembered that Ken Clarke boasted he never read the Maastricht treaty he voted for.
Posted by: Iain | June 24, 2007 at 16:04
WRT past vote intention. Almost any poll that is not *weighted* by past vote will find far too many Labour supporters, even if it appears to be representative of the population as a whole. It's not entirely clear why this should be so, but it is a demonstrable fact.
MORI don't weight by past vote (the only pollster not to do so). Hence, their base figures almost invariably show a Labour lead, regardless of what other pollsters are showing. They try to correct for this, by treating as authoritative the voting intentions of those who say they they are "certain to vote" (usually 50-60% of the sample".) This invariably raises the Tory score, and reduces that for Labour.
What is clear is that times of political change, MORI comes up with some very volatile results. For example, in 2005, IIRC it went from giving a 9% Labour lead before Cameron's election to giving a 2% Tory lead afterwards. Almost certainly, it had exaggerated the shift to the Conservatives at that time, and is almost certainly exaggerating the shift to Labour now.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 24, 2007 at 16:09
it should be remembered that Ken Clarke boasted he never read the Maastricht treaty he voted for.
Cambridge trained lawyer - what can you expect....but with a referendum he would have had to read it
Posted by: TomTom | June 24, 2007 at 16:14
but with a referendum he would have had to read it
I wouldn't be surprised if he still hadn't, his saying he hadn't read it was very much a case of being that he didn't think he needed to and he didn't care who knew it.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | June 24, 2007 at 19:56
Iain, you're being rather childish when you talk about Polly Toynbee et al. The Conservaties will not win an election as they are now. If you don't like that, I'm sorry, but it's reality. You can't demand the public change to suit you. You give them what they want or you stay in Opposition. It is that simple.
Cameron realises this. It isn't about winning an election at any cost, but it is his priority to get his party into office even if that means some hard choices being made. You can't just sob about the days when tax cuts won elections, nor wish that thumping the tub about Europe will win seats - that's just day-dreaming.
As many commentators will say, the problem with the Conservatives is that they're not hungry enough for power. You talk about a clone of New Labour, but back in the 90s traditional Labour voters complained of their party turning into a Tory clone. So if we follow your logic, Cameron would only be copying his own party!
If you can't see the differences between Labour and the Conservative Party, you should look again with a pair of prescription glasses on. Even I can see the differences. Conservatives are:
*In favour of more restrained State spending
*In favour of a streamlined Europe working for all Europeans' benefit, by addressing the core problems inside of it rather than ignoring them
*In favour of rewarding people who work and study hard, rather than penalising them
*In favour of spending the right amount of money on the armed forces in proportion to the work they do, rather than expect them to fight two wars on a peacetime budget
*In favour of trusting people to make the right choices, rather than telling them what to do and doubting/suspecting them of crimes, etc
Those all seem like pretty big differences to me, and those are views I've formed since Cameron became leader. Labour will always have a slight authoritarian, control-freakery side to it, whereas the Conservatives will always be more prone to wanting to free people.
Just because politics has moved towards the centre-ground does not mean anyone on the centre-ground has to be the same. This is one of the Conservative party's biggest problems - members think that because Labour are on the centre ground, Cameron has to copy them to take it from them. That's nonsense. He can keep the real core of what it means to be a Conservative. Sadly I think too many Tories have actually forgotten what it means to be Conservative, instead praying to golden idols like tax cuts, grammar schools on every street corner and giving Europe a good kick whenever they feel like it.
Posted by: Raj | June 25, 2007 at 00:04
"In favour of trusting people to make the right choices, rather than telling them what to do"
Like centrally imposing school structures, teaching methods and racial mixes whilst barring people from choosing educational structures that they may want but which are not likes by the Cameron clique?
"In favour of more restrained State spending"
Like his proposal for additional state funding of political parties that no only increases state spending but detaches politicians completely from the electorate?
"In favour of a streamlined Europe working for all Europeans' benefit, by addressing the core problems inside"
Like the common fisheries disaster?
"In favour of rewarding people who work and study hard, rather than penalising them"
Like jacking up tax on flights to stop them enjoying their success with extra holidays abroad - or worse still, flying reguarly as part of that business that has become successful?
Posted by: Chelloveck | June 25, 2007 at 06:37
It appears Raj you are taken in by rhetoric and marketing. You have some inchoate notions of policy. The Conservatives raised taxes significantly on taking office in 1979......they cut taxes when North Sea Oil revenues made it possible and failed to sterilise foreign capital inflows as Sterling became a petro-currency.
None of this was pre-ordained - it was reacting to events.
Cameron has had 18 months to roll out policies and define his party programme - Thatcher had the CPS and set an agenda in the 1970s by encouraging thinkers to do so.
What we have nowadays is marketing men and advertising and positioning and gimmickry that keeps thinkers away from the shallow actors of the political stage. Process has triumphed over Product.
When the Tories disappear off to Crete and Bermuda and South Africa during the Summer, Brown will be preparing his election campaign to gain his own majority based upon his Fresh Start.
The Conservatives have wasted 18 months and now the clock is ticking. We know the areas where they agree with Labour; we know why LibDems should vote for them; but the Bromley Question has still not been resolved; why should Conservatives vote for them ?
Posted by: TomTom | June 25, 2007 at 07:19
Sadly I think too many Tories have actually forgotten what it means to be Conservative
That's very possible Raj, but it's equally obvious that others - yourself included - never had the faintest idea in the first place.
At base, Conservatism implies the belief that custom and tradition are the great guides to the way we should live our lives, and as activists we are therefore obliged to oppose those political tendencies which attempt to substitute social engineering for social stability.
William Hague rightly described a Britain transformed by the tyrannical and vicious New Labour system as 'a foreign land'. It is indeed. Today I open my paper to learn of a orgy of violence overnight leaving seven people dead, yet when I recently condemned 'Blair's Britain' as the foul and vicious place it is, some buffoon cut in to claim it is a 'fantastic' place in which to live.
Fantastic indeed, for the murdered youth of Blair's Britain. Fantastic indeed, in the correct sense of the word; a nightmarish fantasy of violence, depravity and debt-ridden despair.
And every fool of a so-called Tory who believes it necessary to make excuses for the self-evident sleaze of this Godless society helps to ensure the open-ended continuation of the Blair/Brown Socialist Reich.
Unfortunately our 'leader' appears to be among them.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 25, 2007 at 08:09
TT
That's very possible Raj, but it's equally obvious that others - yourself included - never had the faintest idea in the first place.
Who said I was a Conservative? I have voted Tory in the past, but I'm not a member and undecided for the next election.
Fantastic indeed, in the correct sense of the word; a nightmarish fantasy of violence, depravity and debt-ridden despair.
That's a gross exaggeration. Things have not fallen apart since 1997, though I know some people live to believe it has. It's the sort of temper-tantrum response to those who still can't accept Labour won and that they haven't arsed things up. If things are bad now socially, previous Conservative administrations certainly had a hand in it too. Indeed, they were more the cause than Blair.
for the murdered youth of Blair's Britain
Maybe then the Conservatives shouldn't have signed up to Iraq - plenty of youths murdered there.
------
TomTom
The Conservatives have wasted 18 months and now the clock is ticking.
As I pointed out, what was the point of doing what every leader has done since '97? Every time a good policy was announced too early ahead of an election, it was nabbed by Labour. Why would it have been any different this time? Indeed with Gordon's "fresh start" he could have done the same with even more legitimacy.
Now is indeed the time to respond to Gordon Brown, but again one must not be hasty. If he waits until 2009/2010, any announcements now will be either forgotten or stolen.
Why vote Conservative? I don't know yet. But what exactly is the point of being high in the polls now? To feel good? The only real achievement is getting a high vote and number of seats at an election. We shall see what Cameron does in the coming months.
I do know one thing - the more "activists" in the party scream about this and that, the more he will be distracted from his job just as a parent is by a wailing child throwing a tantrum on the supermarket floor. And just as the parent is embarrassed, the public also thinks less of Cameron and the Tories.
If the malcontents want Cameron to get on with the job, they need to get off his back and stop acting like spoilt kids that aren't being stuffed with sweets when they want them.
------
Chelloveck, I'm talking about the present, not the past. No one should vote according to the past, otherwise the Conservatives would forever be in Opposition because of Black Wednesday.
Posted by: Raj | June 25, 2007 at 14:56
In their May poll of those polled 20% were Conservative 32% Labour and 14% Lib Dems. In this month's poll it was Tories 20% (same), Labour 35% (plus 3) and Lib Dems 11% (minus 3).
The poll results Tory down one, Labour up 4 and the Lib Dems minus 3, more or less exactly the change in the political allegences of those polled this time from last time.
Odd that.
Posted by: Ralph | June 25, 2007 at 17:28