Labour lead is 6% in new ICM poll

More details of the ICM survey for The Guardian can be read here.  ICM also finds that: "Among Conservative voters, 42% say they like the party but dislike Mr Cameron. Only 3% answer the other way around. Just over half (52%) say they like both party and leader."

Comments

[Teck]

Obsession with poll results, in-fighting and self-doubt ("mirror, mirror on the wall") are negative impacts that damage our credibility as a party ready for government.

Instead of internalising ourselves, we should take full account of the key directions that whole of the British public wish its government to take.

From this legitimacy comes authority. Charisma merely exercises this authority on and from the political arena into government.

[Teck]

Teck @ 0628:

From this legitimacy comes authority. Charisma merely exercises this authority in the political arena, and takes it into government.

(The sun has risen...!)

[Tony Barton]

But the Cameroons were obsessed with poll results when they were running their way. They now have to take the rough with the smooth.

"Among Conservative voters, 42% say they like the party but dislike Mr Cameron" is a fantastic result which shows things are moving fast in the right direction.

On Ceefax late last night that was the ONLY news about Cameron/the Party. His bungling trip to Africa had been completely expunged.

I missed the earlier news. The Africa junket would have been so right for the "and finally..." slot.

[TomTom]

I missed the earlier news. The Africa junket would have been so right for the "and finally..." slot.

A bit like Any Questions when a panellist is stuck in a traffic jam and has to participate via mobile phone....and completely peripheral to where the action is

[Caroline Best]

This was always Cameron's biggest danger (and I speak as someone who voted for him, is prepared to back him but is concerned at some of the things he does and says).

Whilst the polls were in his favour he could silence dissent, when they run against him he is very vulnerable. He needs to interact more with the party in the country and not sound so dismissive of them. They'd naturally back him if he aired their concerns.

The Editor always said the next few months could be turbulent and hopefully we'll ride them out, but Dave, eat a little humble pie. It always goes down well. Lol.

[Bloody Minded]

Caroline now that Cameron's poll lead has gone he has NOTHING to offer us.

We were told to put up with all that "Modernisation" claptrap purely because it would deliver votes. It's failed, so it's back to Plan A.

Cameron is now clearly seen to be dispensible. The only question is whether we dispose of him before or after the General Election.

He has thoroughly contaminated this party with his nauseating PC gimmicks. There is going to have to be a massive purge when he is gone.

[EML]

Labour down 2%? Rejoice!

Seriously, 32% must be our lowest poll rating for quite some time.

[Tapestry]

ICM have others on 10% up from 9% in their survey. This is not credible. At Sedgefield others were on 20%. In many other polls they are on 15%. Something is not yet right with their polling techniques.

[Tapestry]

The Southall and Sedgefield by-election evidence was strong that the Party's support is up a little since the GE. To find a 10% fall in support a week later is not credible.

[Drusilla]

The Southall and Sedgefield by-election evidence was strong that the Party's support is up a little since the GE. To find a 10% fall in support a week later is not credible.

That makes no sense at all. For one thing, the Conservatives campaigned in both seats (albeit to varying degrees), and we should probably accept the conventional wisdom that campaigning for a party helps it gain support. Whereas the polling took place throughout the UK, not just in these two constituencies, so one would expect Tory support to be lower, all else being equal.

The more interesting point, though, is whether these by-election results - seen by the media and most of the public as being pretty rotten for us - have actually damaged Tory support overall, in making us look like a bunch of losers.

Cameron's main selling point within the Party was always that, whatever one might think of his views, he was a fresh face who might possibly be able to win elections. Now that perception is fading, the Party and the country may well find that Cameron has very little else to say for himself.

[HF]

Let us pray that Mr Coulson can bring some sense to our press operations.

We also need an organised solid opposition mounted to Brown, not the present mess.

[eugene]

I am always surprised how some think the 'others' should be in the 20s. Who are the 'others'- BNP, UKIP, Greens, MRLP, Respect, WRP, Communist, SWP- mostly extreme looppy groups. It would be seriously worrying if they were anywhere near 10 %. Forget by elections- many tend to be silly with their votes in those because the net outcome is inconsequential.

On the happy side, at least Brown is not running away with it...fallen back a bit which may show momentum is running out and voters beginning to take a more sober look at him.

[Dismayed]

The Editor's quote helps explain the collapse in party membership since Cameron became Leader.

Does anyone know the current figure? I heard that the national membership is well below 250,000 now.

[[email protected]]

Various MPs tell me that Dave listens to virtually nobody these days except for Steve Hilton. On the basis that Plan Hilton obviously isn't going work in the longterm, shouldn't Hilton now be sacked?

[Stand Up Throw Up]

Remember Eugene..."Others" usually includes all the Welsh, Scottish and Irish parties serving a sixth of the population.

Still doesn't alter the fact that the Witney Windbag is about to blow himself out....

[CDM]

Unsurprisingly, Brown's honeymoon has managed to stretch beyond its first week. It should be noted that this poll shows a decline in Labour's lead from the last ICM poll by one point, although this is within the margin of error.

Whatever we do, we mustn't lose our nerve. The policy reviews will soon be giving Cameron much greater credibility when he attacks the Government, as now he will have alternative policies to offer the British people.

[Richard North]

"Still doesn't alter the fact that the Witney Windbag is about to blow himself out....

Posted by: Stand Up Throw Up | July 25, 2007 at 09:46"

That needs to be changed, in line with the ethos of the "amendment treaty", reference to which (and Hague's speech) is remarkably absent from this site.

Delete all after: "Witney Windbag is about ...". Insert: "to be blown out."

The only surprising thing - if indeed it is a surprise - is that it has taken so long.

[Drusilla]

The press situation is a disaster. For reasons unrelated to the troubles of the Tory party, I ended up watching about three hours of Sky News and BBC 24 last night, and I am pretty sure there wasn't a single mention of David Cameron's Rwanda visit - nor did I see a Tory spokesman anywhere, despite the fact the Goverment was taking quite a pounding on its flood management from pretty much everyone else.

As for the Rwanda visit, I don't agree with some of those who post here that Africa is totally irrelevant or of no interest to normal people. But I do think the sort of aid projects the Tories were portrayed as undertaking (whatever the reality may have been) came across as incredibly old-fashioned (believe me, Rwandans are perfectly capable of re-building orphanages without supervision from a white person), that Cameron wasn't tough enough on the corruption and bad governance that are the real reason for Africa's poverty, and that the whole genocide focus came across as mawkish and exploitative.

There are, after all, some genuine humanitarian catastrophes going on in Africa right now. I would have much prefered to see Cameron standing on the border with Zimbabwe, calling the world's attention to the appalling regime there, insisting that other African nations distance themselves from Mugabe and his thugs, and presenting some fresh and exciting solutions for freeing Zimbabwe from this tyrant and helping it on the way to becoming the excellent country it really could be.

Whatever else that might have achieved, it would perhaps have looked a bit more relevant, generated a bit more attention and put the government on the back foot, forcing them to respond. Whereas, by harping on about another atrocity that the world mostly ignored at the time, Cameron was paradoxically ignoring an atrocity that Britain could help to end. No wonder everyone, the media included, remains pretty uninspired by Sham Cam.

[michael]

Cameron knows we must reach beyond Conservative voters to the extra 10-15% of people who have stopped voting Conservative since 1992. Those needed to win the General Election.

So the question should ask all voters who they prefer; the Party or Cameron. Asking only Conservative voters misses the point.

[eugene]

Thanks for that post Drusilla . I too noted the lack of any attention given to the Conservatives on TV last night.

However, this is an issue that the Conservative Party must take up with the BBC especially. I think it was Andrew Marr being invited to a Cabinet Meeting and it was just seriously sucking up to Labour stuff- almost like a very long party political broadcast.

Solution- we cannot talk sense to the BBC. Tried that. The Party should now ask its voters to withold license fees as we are not happy to subsidise a Labour machine.

[Teck]

Bloody Minded [July 25, 2007 at 08:21]

History has shown that politics is a harsh place, and plotters are probably already at work, not necessarily for selfish reasons, but motivated by instincts of group survival. As DC himself has alluded to but still unrevealed and anxiously awaited, "substance" in the form of substantial policies are desperately needed.

Will it be too late? Where can I do my bit?

[The Ghosty of Leo Amery]

"Brown's broken promises on EU Referendum"

Hague et al are going on about things like this that do not matter to anyone who lives in the real world - that's why we are behind. Voters hate the negative and the only message we are putting over is that Brown is bad - they don't always believe this so we need to tell them why we are good.

[Hummerstone]

So the question should ask all voters who they prefer; the Party or Cameron. Asking only Conservative voters misses the point.

The question did ask that. Comparing the leaders - Cameron came off even worse.

Conservative voters:

42% like the party but dislike Cameron
3% like Cameron but dislike the party
52% like both Cameron and the party

Labour voters:

75% like both Brown and the party

All voters:

37% like both Brown and his party

18% like Cameron but not his party
26% like the Conservatives but not Cameron

[The Ghosty of Leo Amery]

Rwanda did not make it onto the TV because it is of no interest to anyone. DC has been on the news - they followed him around his constituency the other day. BBC News gave Benn a grilling over the floods, but sadly he was able to answer their questions. If we want news coverage we have to earn it - if the whole media is against us, including Sky, we have to ask why. It's because we are shit at the moment.

[James Burdett]

I would draw an analogy between David Cameron and Lewis Hamilton. Both are the most talented individuals in their field, and both have had a rough patch. It doesn't follow that because Lewis Hamilton had a bad patch that he isn't a great F1 driver. It certainly doesn't follow that because the government got a fillip following the departure of Blair and that the Conservative Party has had a bad patch in some respects that David Cameron isn't a great leader. Let's get some perspective, the tide will turn again and if we or our MP's or a combination of both use this wobble to inflict severe damage on the leadership then the party will have no chance of winning the next election. For crying out loud lets stop acting as if self-justification was the highest principle!!!

[simon]

Well, i think the reporter for Rwandan TV said it all when she asked DC: 'Shouldn't you be in your constituency?' Quite. The poll result is another disappointing indicator for things to come. DC is too interested in 'gesture politics' at the mo. The only trouble is the electorate may well turn around with a gesture of their very own at the next GE (ie) one finger).... It is said in the G******N that his closest advisors asked him not to go to Rwanda. He should have taken that advice.

[Nick Longworth]

Thank God none of you lot on here are responsible for the direction of the party.
It's like walking into the Dog and Duck and discovering the World Pub Bores Championships!
DC has a strategy and overall it is being effective in repositioning the party and making us electable again by appealing to the middle ground floating voters.
Brown is the new kid on the block - however much we hate it - and he's got all the levers of government and a parliamentary majority at his disposal.
Calm under fire is required. Brown is firing off his heavy artillery - let's wait and see what's what when the smoke clears.

[eugene]

I am not sure about we having to earn media coverage.

This site is made up of mainly Conservative activists and many of us THOUGHT DC was in Rwanda at the weekend when he was at the scene of the floods.We were bombarded with Brown being at the flood scene however. If we cannot determine which country the Leader of the Opposition is in from the media, than there is something wrong with the media. As for last night, comments were made such as (loosely quoted) ''Brown has has a faultless first few weeks as PM''- that is opinion, not fact. Indeed, the flood damage could have been prevented if government had taken advice given months and years ago. Brown even went as far as saying ''no-one could predict this'', without challenge. Brown was broadcast as stating (and this is a direct quote) ''I was personally involved up to midnight last night''- a personal self congratulatory plug, that is not really news worthy, but using the media, who were glad to comply.

[Bill]

Well Eugene, if the Tories think are not getting fair treatment from the broadcast media they should do something about it instead of fearfully fighting shy of the latter and in particular the BBC which I feel has been biased ever since I can remember.

[Andrew Lilico]

Am I right in thinking that this indicates that 3% of the Conservative vote, or 1% of voters overall, claim to be Conservative supporters precisely because of Cameron? Do we know how many voters for other parties claim to be not Conservative supporters precisely because of Cameron?

How does his net score compare with that of previous leaders? My guess is that there would be heavily net negative scores for Howard and IDS, with perhaps a smaller net negative score for Hague, a very strongly net negative score for Major after 1995, but a respectably net positive score for Major at 1992. IIRC, when I've seen discussion of these things before, the thought was that Maggie had a strongly positive net score - she attracted far more Conservative voters than she put off - though I don't know of any statistics to prove it.

[Richard North]

You can hardly complain about media coverage, like front page of the Telegraph today ... only it was about Hague's speech on the case for a referendum. Coverage in most other papers as well, including the Daily Mail.

One can imagine that, had Cameron made a statement on the IGC, he too would have got some coverage. Does that not tell you something?

[Curly]

The only polls that count have ballot boxes in them, only last May the electorate dished out it's verdict on years of Blairism. Doesn't that tell us anything?
Yes, we don't want a second dose!

[Torygirl]

DC is too interested in 'gesture politics' at the mo.

He's Heir to Blair, the problem is that Brown has ditched Blair and moved on.

[ben]

we have to think how to handle the brown bounce,
the first big mistake was to start atacking our leader! STUPID

lets unite and turn the fire on labour

[Bill]

Isn't Brown's progress post Blair analagous to Major's after Thatcher was unceremoniously and wrongly dumped by Tory MPs? If so Brown may easily win the next election. After all Major won in spite of the ERM disaster.

[Ken Stevens]

ben | July 25, 11:00
"..we have to think how to handle the Brown bounce.."

Trouble is that whilst Brown bounce may be rather leaden, his dourness & stolidity is paradoxically refreshing after Blair!

How to handle that?

[James Burdett]

"After all Major won in spite of the ERM disaster. "

You can always win in spite of something before it has happened!

[Jake]

"Remember Eugene..."Others" usually includes all the Welsh, Scottish and Irish parties serving a sixth of the population."

S'funny - I thought it was the English who are regarded by the political class as the "others"

- as in "spectators from afar ".

We are certainly treated thus .

[Tony Makara]

Labour dropping two points after only a week. Thats a good sign. All Browns pie-in-the-sky promises are beginning to wear thin already. We all know Brown wont be able to deliver and will be increasingly exposed.

[Patriot]

Maybe folk are becoming resigned to the fact that there continues to be no heavyweight attacking of Labour's appalling record in general and Brown's in particular - as an example we should be highly visible in the press savaging Brown for the following which I lifted from the pages of the FT:

""Brown cut budget for English hospitals
By Chris Giles and Nicholas Timmins

Published: June 29 2007 22:00 | Last updated: June 29 2007 22:00

Gordon Brown quietly slashed by a third this year’s hospital building and equipment budget in one of his last acts as chancellor.

Prompted by the tightness of the public finances, the new prime minister, who has placed the NHS as his “immediate priority”, cut the capital budget of the English NHS for 2007-08 from £6.2bn to £4.2bn. The move could delay the government’s hospital building and reconfiguration programme in England.

However, Mr Brown avoided equivalent cuts to the Scottish and Welsh NHS budgets even though the funding formula for the UK nations suggests they should have shared the pain. That decision leaves him open to criticism that he favoured patients in his home country.""

Again - today we read that government financial support for rail improvement is being ruthlessly cut which will result in drastic fare increases - at a time when the Brown rhetoric is all about reducing vehicle miles etc - yet another open goal for the taking......but will we?

[Bill]

James Burdett

Whilst you are right that we left the ERM in September 1992 following Major's electoral success in May '92, I think it is fair to say that the ERM disaster did not comprise a single day.

Working in the City at the time of entry it was amazing to see how many wise fools thought it a good idea. The damage it caused went beyond Black Wednesday and preceded formal entry into the ERM.

[Ellesmere Dragge]

To the one issue that should be in debate here: the Guardian poll: do we trust it? does it have implications?

Surely (to get back to the matter in hand) yes and yes.

First, it falls within the margins of error of the other immediately-previous surveys, and confirms a trend. It is not valid to point to discrepancies with Sedgefield and Southall: they were asking voters a different question. The formula for an opinion-poll question varies around the idea of "If there were a General Election ...", which tends to invite respondents to return to natural loyalties. A by-election is an open invitation to an arse-kicking contest. So, in both categories the Conservatives are not doing well.

Second, does the poll have implications? Yes, yes, indeed. In part because it tells us that, as things now stand, the Conservative Party will again be plucked, trussed, stuffed and roasted in any General Election in the immediate future. In other part, the Government propaganda machine has its new and potent stratagem; the Daily Mail-friendly policy a week: gambling, drinking, housing ... One statement or answer on a Tuesday or Wednesday can choke the media for the next two days. This is not because the Labour Party expects the Mail readership to defect en masse, but because this is the ploy to bring Middle Britain on board. Meanwhile, all the Shadows can offer is carping criticism and general promises of policy reviews by the autumn. At least David Davis tends to make his own weather (hint, hint).

[JimJam]

Oh dear - looks like we are going to press the self destruct button again. DC has two great local election campaigns but thats not enough - plots are afoot to replace him with IDS 2 and our forth and fifth election defeats are a shoe in... 2017 before the Conservatives get back in government.

[Peter North]

JimJam,

What is the point of a Cameron election victory?

[JimJam]

Let me turn it back on you - would you prefer Gordon Brown to be PM until 2017 ?

Would you rather we stuck to 100% if the principles that lost us 3 elections rather than comprimise on 10-15% and win and turn backthe damage that Brown is doing.

[dafberad]

'Labour dropping two points after only a week. Thats a good sign. All Browns pie-in-the-sky promises are beginning to wear thin already. We all know Brown wont be able to deliver and will be increasingly exposed.'

And the Conservative party also dropping 1 point.

[TomTom]

DC has two great local election campaigns

That is very regional and based on low turnout. What he cannot do in Bromley, Sedgfield, Ealing is reduce Abstentions

[dafberad]

'DC has two great local election campaigns'

Weren't the 2004 local elections equally as good for michael howard?

[Dismayed]

Eugene wrote

"Indeed, the flood damage could have been prevented if government had taken advice given months and years ago. Brown even went as far as saying ''no-one could predict this'', without challenge."

Exactly!! Where was the Conservative spokesman, i.e. Peter Ainsworth, to challenge Brown and the Government?

Ainsworth was prattling about his love for Al Gore and his stupid film but appears to have done nothing over the last few days. Brown has been running rings around our frontbench and CCHQ teams. It is simply not good enough.

[Peter North]

JimJam,

"Let me turn it back on you - would you prefer Gordon Brown to be PM until 2017 ?"

In what ways would it be different?

Brown isn't doing the damage. The EU is. Whats the point of a conservative government who won't take us out?

The other leaders compromised on Europe. That was their downfall and it will continue to be this way.

And I would say that no commitment to tax cuts and serious welfare reform was no 10-15% compromise.

Remember this is the man who thinks Toynbee has something to say.

[EML]

If we're still this far behind in January next year, after the conference season and the production of our draft manifesto, then I will be pissed off.

We can't do much until the media stop sucking up to Brown. They'll get bored of him by the end of the summer.

[reality check]

The Editor's quote helps explain the collapse in party membership since Cameron became Leader.

Membership is down over 80,000 and being hushed up.

[jorgen]

the first big mistake was to start atacking our leader! STUPID

No, the first BIG mistakes was for the leader to make a left turn instead of a right and follow that with attack after attack on the Conservative Party's core voters instead of attacking Labour.

The next BIG mistakes were a series of own goals, latest by thinking that he was a big international statesman whose words would impress the world; however, the Rwanda's MPs were clearly not impressed since only 16 out of 80 MPs bothered to turn up and the rest of the world (except for his constituents) appears to have missed the occasion.

[Patriot]

I've voted Conservative in every election for the last 40 years - and every time, rightly or wrongly, I have believed that I knew what Conservatives stood for.

I have just realised, reading through these posts, that the reason for my own unease about the party these days is that I no longer have that certainty.

May be the rot set in when the party persisted in saying that it would have supported the invasion of Iraq even knowing what we know now, perhaps it was when I heard that I was delusional to believe that Grammar schools had helped social mobility, maybe it's the continued silence on so many issues which are bothering folk like me, like immigration, maybe it was the glossy 'broken Britain' car repair manual in the Telegraph which seemed to nibble at the fringes of all that's wrong rather than going for the meat, perhaps it crystalised when I realised that the leader of the party found it more important to be in Rwanda than in the UK during the present flood disaster. I really don't know, and I'm sure there will be plenty of posts here explaining how mistaken I am - but here's the problem - when all's said and down I'm just a voter, and although I may be wrong, or missing the bigger picture, every conversation I have on this topic seems to suggest that there are many, many more voters who are feeling the same way. If that's the case, something needs to change, radically, if we are to win the next election. Sorry for the rant.

[Raj]

Brown isn't doing the damage. The EU is. Whats the point of a conservative government who won't take us out?

Because at the very least a Conservative government would offer a referendum on more treaties/constitutions, etc.

No party will ever win a general election by promising to leave Europe - you're in denial if you think it could.

[Paul Oakley]

Raj
"No party will ever win a general election by promising to leave Europe - you're in denial if you think it could."

And your evidence for this is?

[Peter North]

Raj, We are not going to get a referendum on this one. So the next referendum will have to be a referendum on the question of membership. We have to plan for that and start educating the public now. No tory leader has dared to come clean but my bet is there would be a massive upsurge in support accross the board were that to happen. The "others" would disappear and tories who have been waiting to vote for a conservative government for ten years will get out of their armchairs and make it to the polling station.

At the moment all any government can do is fiddle around the edges managing the consequences of EU membership. The public needs to be told this. They will support a drive to attack the problem at source.

[JimJam]

When does Platform 10 open ?

[colin foster]

I have been saying and posting this for some time. Steve Hilton must be a fifth columnist. Dave, not the sharpest knife in the draw, goes along with any madcap scheme his guru comes up with. The stupid decision to sacrifice a percentage of our core vote, those who have been loyal through all our decade of tribulations in favour of those fair weather friends on the middle ground, as defined by the BBC, have just moved back to they preferred voting intentions. The discarded core tell us on the doorstep how they no longer contribute time, effort and donations. The grass root structure is in crisis because of Dave's poor leadership as defined by Hilton and I am not sure it is recoverable.

[Peter North]

Give people what they want. A referendum on EU membership. The grassroots will do anything you ask of them.

[Paul Oakley]

What IS platform 10? Will some kind soul tell me? And should I join?

[Ellesmere Dragge]

Hello, what's this?

Davis discipline call to Tories

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6915123.stm

Things must really be bad. Steady, the Buffs!

[Teck]

Patriot [July 25, 2007 at 12:29]

As I have said in these pages, the Conservative Party needs strong leadership, policies that embody the core values of Conservatism and direction that reflect the common sense wishes of the majority of the British people.

And, pardon me, patriotism is something that desperately needs to be given due prominence. Most importantly, my family of voting age feel exactly as you do.

[Richard Carey]

Dave, not the sharpest knife in the draw

Presumably sharp enough to spell drawer, though, so I wouldn't get too sniffy...

[Deja Vu]

Davis is, in fact, sending out a message that Dave's in big trouble. Has Derek Conway started the letter writing campaign already?

[Wants to win]

Editor, we have a real problem.

All the moderates have abandoned ConservativeHome - all thats left are the cameron-haters, EUrophobes and the egotistical armchair generals that think they can run elections better than the party (one question to this last group - why don't you spend less time airing your dirty laundry in public on ConHome and more time using your self-proclaimed expertise in election campaigning?)

As far as I can see, ConHome is being marginalised by CCHQ(quite right too) but being quoted in the press more and more. It is immensely damaging to the Party and to conservatism.

Editor - if you really care about the Conservative Party, you'd put aside your 'fame' and ego and gracefully close this site.. today...

ps using the title "ConservativeHome" and subtitles like "the home of the conservative grassroots" is unfair. I'm embarassed to be associated with this website, as are an increasing number of others in the party that make up the 10% of "the grassroots" of the Party that actually contribute to it

[JimJam]

Wants to win - you said what I wanted to say but 10 times better.

[Judas Was Paid]

Wants to Win: Nice post. But you forgot to put in the usual catchphrases of CCHQ trolls, ie "elections are won in the centre ground"; "reflect the diversity of modern Britain"; "1997, 2001 and 2005" and "prepared to put aside sacred cows".

Please try harder next time.

[eugene]

David Cameron- make a statement. Are you with Conservative ideas to try your best to achieve less taxation, less government, more self reliance and choice.

If so, good. We can shut the moaning and get on with getting Labour out.

We need to hear from you brother.

[Peter North]

Wants to win,

all thats left are the cameron-haters, EUrophobes and the egotistical armchair generals that think they can run elections better than the party?

That would be conservatives then. And oh look they're not very happy. what does that tell you? That perhaps the leadership is not listening?

So you would have this site closed down huh? Must silence the critics of project Camoron.
God forbid conservatives should be allowed a say.

This site is not damaging to the conservative party. Media driven spin and compromise on Europe and conservative values damages the conservative party.

Why do you want to win if cameron isn't prepared to cut tax? I ask again, what is the point of a Cameron victory?

[EML]

I'd like to know what some people on this site don't like about Cameron: is it his style or his substance?

[alex]

The new prime minister has obviously had a poll bounce - a hineymoon. Most do. Now we need to focus sharply on reminding people that he used to be the chancellor for 10 years and make sure he can't shirk responsibility for decisions made that have led to rampant house price inflation, a collapse in private savings, the ruination of many pension schemes and a tax rate that is overtaking Germany.

Also, new bad decisions are being taken every day. A decision to build thousands of new homes in the East Thames Corridor that might as well be called Atlantis. A decision that a new wave of council housing is the solution to the problems of affordability. The decision to cut funding to the rail network that will see commuters facing jacked up fares over the next few years.

That's what we should be focusing on to overturn that Labour poll win and lead. There are people on this site, who I doubt are party members, who would rather Brown won than Cameron. They won't be happy with that result and all that flows from it.

[alex]

honeymoon even!

[James Burdett]

I never thought I'd see the day when supposed supporters of the Conservative Party would resort to tactics last employed by the hard left in the 70's. David Cameron isn't involved in an act of 'betrayal', he is involved in the only way on God's green earth that we are going to have a hope of success at the next election. Whilst members of the party might go weak at the knees whilst various MP's enthusiastically grasp for the party's erogenous zone, the public would recoil in horror. We have tried the traditionalist approach and 2005 was the one more heave. It didn't work. It won't work.

[tired and emotional]

"Thank God none of you lot on here are responsible for the direction of the party.
It's like walking into the Dog and Duck and discovering the World Pub Bores Championships!
DC has a strategy and overall it is being effective in repositioning the party and making us electable again by appealing to the middle ground floating voters.
Brown is the new kid on the block - however much we hate it - and he's got all the levers of government and a parliamentary majority at his disposal.
Calm under fire is required. Brown is firing off his heavy artillery - let's wait and see what's what when the smoke clears."

Nick Longworth is right. Let's not panic under the policy and pr onslaught we intellectually knew was coming but failed to prepare for emotionally.

[TD]

[email protected] - Cameron's being saying all of that from day one.

Can we now get on with fighting this rotten Labour government rather than each other.

[mark]

I watched the Daily Politics whilst having lunch and the message that came over loud and clear during PMQ's was that when Cameron pressed Brown for an answer over the EU constitution/treaty, Brown's replies were greeted by off the scale disapproval by the telephone perception panel.
In the studio even Alan Duncan had to concede that if the Tories went for issues that the public felt strongly about instead of wooly trendy gimmicks, then Brown and the Labour party would be on the ropes.
How about Dave going in hard at next PMQ's over immigration.

[EML]

Damn right TD. I would urge people to read Cameron's speeches. The media are so subserviant and crap that they either misrepresent them or ignore them completely. I think most of them have been very good - and very conservative as well!

[Thatcheroon]

Before anyone else says something silly that they might regret later on, read this excellent post by Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php

[Patriot]

@Wantstowin "why don't you spend less time airing your dirty laundry in public on ConHome and more time using your self-proclaimed expertise in election campaigning?"

campaigning - Good of you to raise that point - someone who voted Labour last time round needs a reason to vote Conservative this time round - which means they need to be looking for a change, which means we need to be perceived as offering it when we next knock on someone's door...so would that be in Iraq? Well, not exactly because it seems we would have done exactly what Labour did and invaded, even knowing all that we have now learned about the lack of WMD....Would that be about immigration then? Well, not exactly because we don't seem to have a position on immigration, all a bit difficult you see....So it's tax then, right? Well, not exactly because we don't forsee any changes on tax...Ahh, I get it, then it's Europe? Well no, not exactly, because we probably wouldn't do anything different in Europe..........

But we think marriage is very important.

As ever I'm sure I'm wrong about all of the above, and there really are oceans of clear blue water between us and them...but if you don't tell me, the voter, what it is, what am I to believe?

But of course, if you deliberately set out to move closer to the party in power, eventually there isn't going to be any clear blue water left, is there?

Democracy can be such a nuisance sometimes.

[Ken Stevens]

EML | July 25, 13:45
"I'd like to know what some people on this site don't like about Cameron: is it his style or his substance?"

Mr Cameron is a very likeable and personable fellow. Unfortunately, the same applied to Blair initially and we all know how that ended up! Therefore the image of fresh new kid on the block is tarnished, albeit through no fault of DC.

The question of substance applies across the Tory hierarchy. There is not yet a perception of cohesive team spirit behind cohesive, distinctive policies at that level, so it is a bit unrealistic to expect it yet amongst Tory supporters.

Maybe cohesion is in the offing but we all need to see what the end-product looks like before deciding whether to consume.

As an unashamed EUphobe (though emphatically NOT a xenophobe), I naturally hope that the party will crystallise along those lines - though with a constructive approach rather than yahbooing Europe as such. Whether that is possible, given the strong influence of the Europhile patrician elders of the party is a moot point.

Overall fear, though, is that Tories fighting on centre-left ground will find it difficult to devise and promote a brand image electorally distinctive from Lab or Lib-Dem. Thus the danger that no centre-left votes acquired but centre-right & beyond votes lost to smaller parties.

[Peter North]

"he is involved in the only way on God's green earth that we are going to have a hope of success at the next election"

You getting these floods on your planet?

"the public would recoil in horror."

No. The BBC would. If the party attacked the media and the EU it would be on a winner.

"We have tried the traditionalist approach and 2005 was the one more heave. It didn't work. It won't work."

Really? How come I didn't vote then? Oh thats right, they were banging on about immigration while failing to tell us it's an EU competance. You can't tackle immigration without tackling the EU and its trade policies. The public knows this and were not fooled by the compromises designed to hide the schizm. The tories have always been split on Europe and it never goes away. It has to be dealt with and not swept under the rug. There has still not been anything like the showdown it needs.

"DC has a strategy and overall it is being effective in repositioning the party and making us electable again by appealing to the middle ground floating voters."

Based on what evidence do you make this claim?

" I would urge people to read Cameron's speeches."

Why? voters don't.

[MrB]

I think it's hilarious to watch the usual suspects on this site leap onto any bit of negative polling and claim that it shows Cameron has failed.

They conveniently forget those 900 gains in the only real electoral test we've had so far. They also like to forget that we have a new PM who's had blanket media coverage in times of uncertainty over terrorism and the floods. Events such as these tend to see people more supportive of the government.

I've not heard one sensible suggestion as to who would replace Cameron either.

I rather think he'd like to talk about immigration, europe and crime a bit more and I hope he will, but every time he tries we get the whole "Same old tories" thrown at us. We just need to hold on tight through the inevitable "bad times" and then concentrate on fighting Labour instead of each other.

[Graham D'Amiral]

Did anyone think Brown wouldn't have a honeymoon period? Or that Ealing Southall and Sedgfield are key marginal seats?

Some posters on this site don't strike me as being the sort who would be good in a crisis, at the first sign of things not going well they have lost their nerve and are predicting doom and disaster.

The truth is we are a few weeks in to a new prime minister's term of office and Gordon Brown has benefited largely through not being Tony Blair. However the trouble he has is you can only be new once and eventually you actually have to be judged on what you do.

We shouldn't forget that David Cameron has given us until the last few weeks our best poll ratings since the 1992 general election, the Brown bounce has changed things but the defeatists who want to wave the white flag as far as the next general election is concerned already should develop a backbone.

[R.Baker.]

After todays PMQs,I expect us to be down another 2% tomorrow in the Polls.I hope not though.

[Luke]

The reason there are so many "armchair generals" at the moment is because it is so obvious where the faults in the Tory operation lie. In particular in the press operation at CCHQ.

To be fair to DC - he sees it too and is dealing with it.

[Ellesmere Dragge]

Thatcheroon at 14:04:

I did read your link to Wells, and I'm still no wiser. First off, he needs a decent sub-editor for spelling, punctuation and grammar. Second, it's waffle: try this for size --

"It’s a transitory bounce in the polls that might fade away, or might be transformed into a solid Labour lead. It tells us nothing yet about the next election - what it does do is set the media agenda, and now that the Conservatives are behind the media are once again writing about Cameron being under pressure and Tory troubles. That may well become a self-fullfilling prophesy" [sic]. Etc. etc.

And that's illuminating? No: it's saying the blindingly obvious, very badly.

Expectations about Brown before his accession were depressed, because that was the media "take", greatly encouraged by quick-fix, self-serving and short-sighted Tories (supply your own names). Those expectations are not now over-inflated (as the Blair phenomenon was), and the product/brand is still capable of further development. Whereas Brand Cameron has been overhyped, oversold and is under-featured: it is well on the way to being a broken brand.

[Michael Davidson]

Things are only going to go downhill from here. We may as well kiss goodbye to the next general election and just try to limit the damage. Then as soon as the election is over, ditch Cameron ASAP.

[eugene]

[email protected] - ''Cameron's being saying all of that from day one.''

OK TD. Glad to hear than. Set me right then. Seriously.

I have so far only heard the contrary. I want a chocy orange when I go into WH Smith, I am annoyed the NHS lost my blood tests and left me for 3 days falling over because of an ear blockage before they saw me- I want choice in healthcare...oh dear...I am on a rant again...set me right quickly please.

[MrB]

Why is it Ellesmere? Cameron has made sure to keep a lot of his powder dry. That's the reason we don't have many policies yet! Brown however seems to be firing everything off at once. This may be good for him if he chooses to go with an early election, but it gives us time to respond with contrasting (and hopefully better) policies. He'll be committed, we arn't.

[Peter North]

C'mon get a grip. The tories came third in both by-elections.
Brown bounce or no, there is no excuse for not beating the Libdems.

Cameron has not made any pledges toward tax cuts we need. No attempt to come clean about immigration, embraces the welfare ideals of Polly Toynbee and buys into this crap about global warming when the public have seen through the scam.

To top it all off he doesn't even endorse the policies dreamt up by his own team. He floats an idea and adopts it if it survives the media. It betrays a total lack of conviction and is pandering to populism. He's a phoney and has been spotted as such. Ask any ordinary northerner "what do you think of cameron?". "he's a Nonce" being the most likely reply.

Top of my list is not Rwanda or cycling to work and I'm not alone. Statistic posted here should tell you that. Cameron is out on his own.

I repeat...

When people do not know how they are going to pay the bills and keep their homes, when people do not feel safe to go about their business on the streets, when heroin use in Scotland is exploding, when industry no longer recognizes the value of degrees, when adult illiteracy is at critical levels, when we have no idea who or how many people are being allowed to come to the country, when terrorists are given citizenship to avoid a breach of their human rights, when our troops are dying for want of decent equipment and when we are expected to pay ever more for less from our inefficient and wasteful government, can we really be expected to give a damn about energy saving light bulbs and cycling to work?

What isn't a direct effect of EU control, is an effect of leftist statism. Rather than pandering to recieved wisdom we must allow knowledge to drive the debate and not the media.
This requires a conservative solution. A total slash and burn of public sector waste and confronting the EU for the damage it has done.

Touchy feely makes us sick. People WANT a nasty party. Don't be fooled by the BBC.
The fact the BBC love Cameron should tell you everything.

Now and again he talks a good game about the issues I mentioned but I just get the impression he's talking about it because that's what his focus groups have told him to talk about. He cannot be trusted. He is a spiv, a phoney and a loser. Anyone who thinks there is even the slightest chance of a conservative victory under Camoron should have their head examined.

The best we can hope to do is limp through the next election, chuck out this gimp and keep chucking them out until we find a leader in touch with the people who is prepared to tackle the really tough issues and get real about Europe.

[Ellesmere Dragge]

MrB at 14:38:

If I understand you, the PBI were marched off to Sedgefield and Southall while High Command sat on the munitions supplies. Rings a bell: didn't work in the First Unpleasantness, ain't working now.

And what are these "killer" policies, these "super-weapons"? Do they refer to Europe, immigration, the economy, taxation, family? If so, what's new, what's different and when? On the other hand, if it's a tax-hike of £20 per week, financed by beer money, whoop-e-do! Or something.

No: the issue is a bit of grittiness and guts. Neither of which shine forth from the Bullingdon boys.

[MrB]

Peter North does well describing the utterly suicidal plan we shouldnt follow. The very idea we should keep ditching leaders until we get a "good" one is mad beyond belief.

By elections are by elections, we never win them, we haven't for decades. Our first real electoral tests were in the council elections and we surpassed expectations no?

There are no "killer policies" ellesmere, but people should be more patient and wait until we actually have a full programme before they say Cameron has failed.

[Peter North]

I wil actively work against a conservative victory as long as that man is in charge.

Unless we get a leader willing to do the job of a tory PM there is NO POINT AT ALL.

[MrB]

Who do you suggest Peter? There is actually no one with more appeal than Cameron. I don't think he's perfect and I'd certainly like him to be more "traditional", but he's the best we have, far better and far more successful already than the past 3 leaders.

[Yet Another Anon]

By elections are by elections, we never win them, we haven't for decades.
Usually oppositions including Official Opposition make by election gains off the government, the Conservative Party since 1997 hasn't been although it did start holding it's own seats in by-elections.

The 1906, 1923, 1924, 1929, 1945, 1951, 1964, 1970, 1979 and 1997 changes in government were all preceded by parliamentary by-election victories by the main opposition party - when the Conservative Party start strengthening their vote in by-elections and even taking seats off other parties in parliamentary by elections then they will be getting back in contention for a return to government!

[MrB]

Good and persuasive evidence there YAA. But isn't there good reason to suggest that because we haven't won a by election in so long, yet the Lib Dems have made it their trademark that this "rule" may not apply anymore? I may be wrong, but if this trend has been picked up in the public's conciousness then it may be true.

[Matt Wright]

This site can serve a useful role and when it is good the debate can be fantastic, including constructive criticism which is good for the party and democracy. In recent days I have suggested positive ways we can refine our approach and build on the strategy. However when the site is bad it is absolutely dire and damaging. I think the problem is that there are a handful of people who post frequently with totally negative attacks on the leader of the party and the party as a whole. There aim is obvious and yet the editor appears to do nothing about it month after month. In some of the posts above it is clear how they actually revel in the most negative statements they can dig up or stir up against the party. Nobody (certainly not me) wants sycophancy or blind following of a leader but there are basic requirements for constructive debate. I actually would not like to see the site attacked overall because such a conflict would divert attention from building up conservative ideas, but at the moment the site is serving more to feed the perception of division. This actually makes it harder for Conservative grassroots to improve our strategy and not easier.

Matt

[jorgen]

Who do you suggest Peter?

David Davis, of course.

Hague is out if not for other reasons then because he is too busy being involved in other things.

[MrB]

David Davis will be a brilliant and competant minister. But he didn't win the leadership election by a mile becuase he simply doesn't engage with people on the same level as Cameron. However much you hate PR and "charisma" it's a huge part of a Leader's electability in these times.

I liked Michael Howard and saw his potential, but the public didn't because they saw the "nasty" and vampire-like charicature. Cameron is the only one who has the broad appeal and charisma.