More members were dissatisfied than satisfied with David Cameron before the Blackpool Conference

On the Saturday before Party Conference we published the findings of our September survey of party members... well, we published most of the findings.

One finding, in particular, was missing.

We found that more members were dissatisfied than satisfied with David Cameron.  48% were satisfied.  49% were dissatisfied.  We decided that, on the eve of what appeared a very likely election, there was no gain to be had from disclosing the extent of grassroots unease with the party leader.

Tomorrow we'll be publishing the October findings.  Let's just say that things have changed a little!

Comments

[Votedave]

As I always say, in the end patience and long-term thinking always beats knee-jerk reactions and disloyalty - and with it the Labour Party.
That is what all Conservatives should realise for the future.

[Jennifer Wells]

That was the responsible thing to do Tim. We all gave David Cameron unity in Blackpool and he used that loyalty well.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Well I hope they've changed a lot! We as a party owe an enormous debt to David Cameron. However not every initative should come from him. I don't understand why today our focus on immigration was not led by David Davis who will eventually have responsibility for implementing this policy. To win the trust of the public we must promote ourselves as a competent alternative team ,not just a one man band.

[HF]

I thought you had held back some figures, well done. Let us hope that the people responsible for the summer shambles such as, Willetts, Letwin. Mercer, Bercow and Ancram have learned their lesson.

[Afleitch]

Thank you. The media would have scoured this website, it would have been the leading headine on the BBC. It's no stretch of the imagination to see how this could have been applied to damamge the party and change the news agenda.

[Drusilla]

It's interesting that on the late afternoon and early evening of Cameron's Conference speech, comments posted on this site didn't go up for a few hours - hours, crucially, in which the media was deciding that Cameron's speech was a huge success, rather than actually a bit lame and pointless, which is apparently what plenty of the political commentators present apparently thought. And so the legend of a triumph - a speech without notes, whoever heard of such brilliance? - was concocted, err, born.

Maybe you were just really busy? I don't say that entirely facetiously - it's entirely possible. Or maybe you were dong something else and were right to do it - I have a lot of respect for the personal integrity of the Editor.

At the same time, though, it's surely possible to lament the absence of a truly independent, transparent, straight-up forum in which the grassroots of the Conservative Party, as well as critics and waverers, can express their views without fear of a style of mediation all the more dangerous for being subtle, understated and apparently benign.

[Martin Cole]

HF at 1712 stated "I thought you had held back some figures, well done. Let us hope that the people responsible for the summer shambles such as, Willetts, Letwin. Mercer, Bercow and Ancram have learned their lesson."

It appears he missed Cameron's name from the list, or does the leader of the Tory's now only take kudos and never carry the can.

After this deliberate censorship of survey results, can Conservative Home at least rename itself 'Conservative Party Home' or do they believe genuine conservatives will now regularly tolerate statistical manipulation and deceit?

What an incredible mindset your posting reveals!! Made so that you can boast of the past month's turnaround one presumes.

My previous two comments to this blog were edited, if this is treated similarly I will post the two versions on one of my own blogs, perhaps a new one altogether titled Conservative Home Spin! Or why not lets be honest for a change and use the better term - Conservative Home Deception?

[Oberon Houston]

I think that things were very unstable before conference and people react to situations. I see three lessons here:

1. Party members react to short term issues, the leadership need to ride the waves on the course they have charted. The more they make headway the more slack they deserve. We should not under-estimate just how hard, difficult and relentlesly demanding Cameron's job is.

2. Success breeds confidence and loyalty, lets not look back too much.

3. Finally, ConHome's use of discretion has been vindicated, but you asked the question in the first place. Publishing the pre-conference reults in the old survey would have just undermined everything, including CH surveys. But by using intelligent tactics and editing, just like this, you have shown impressive editorial skills. Well done guys, I am conscious I am the first to critisise when you get it wrong, so its only fair to take my hat off when you get it right.

[Oberon Houston]

HF, a bit unfair? Apart from Ancram, who deliberatly went for Cameron... the Willetts grammar thing? Well I greatly admire him, and think he is a real asset, so am fustrated that he has been knocked about like this. Bercow? Well, that already been debated, and we need to show understanding for his areas of interest.

Letwin? Done a good job, or don't you like the sociocentric words he used? I think Letwin had had a history of making policy that loses us elections (poll-tax, 87% of voters worse off... could go on, quick quiz, what other howlers was he responsible for??) but I believe he now 'gets it', policy looks good to me.

[jonathan]

Of course it might have been better for both your reputations to have made the revelation in private rather than in public.

[Deputy Editor]

There was no "statistical manipulation or deceit", Martin. We chose to delay one element of the survey for the greater good, and that's at our discretion.

Conservatism wouldn't have been advanced by kicking the party when it was down in such a way.

We never edit comments unless they are abusive or unsubstantiated. Occasionally they will be overridden for irrelevance.

[Simon]

Well done Tim you've played another blinder for Brown. When all else fails he can always rely on you to ride to the rescue.

[Ay Up]

Theres no pleasing anyone is there!?

[Ted]

With a 8% lead in tomorrows papers after a very successful October CHomes discretion is validated - it was a difficult enough job for the Leadership at the start of conference without adding more difficulty.

[Perdix]

Well done Editor. The MSM always looks for the "splits" or "rows" and never for policy news. You are probably aware that the (unecessary) row over grammar schools was fuelled by your dwelling on that subject. if you believe in Tory values and want a Conservative government you have to be careful not to give comfort to our enemies.I think that you now realise that.

[John Leonard]

For those who do not know what Ted is talking about. There is a Comres poll in the Indy tomorrow which both Political Betting and Ben Brogan are reporting:

Con 41% +7
Lab 33% -3
LD 16% -

Both Electoral Calculus and the UK Polling Report SwingCalculator suggest that such a result would put the Conservatives on the verge of an overall majority (one says 2 short & the other says majority of 2).

Good news for DC. Bad news for Brown. Some relief for the LD's although they could still be talking about losing over half their seats!

[John Leonard]

Is Conhome now leaking its own poll results to Ben Brogan?

http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2007/10/more-good-news-.html

[Tanuki]

The latest post-conference poll results are a move in the right direction, yes - but it must be remembered that it's come about to a [great] extent because we've finally managed to get a hold on the Gummer/Goldsmith axis-of-green-loonery and are now trying to control their damaging drivel. Now if we can only consign the flirtation with 'greenery' to history and get focussed back on the real issues that affect ordinary people - excess taxes, obsolete public-services, a burdensome and intrusive state - we really can win the next election.

[Common Sense]

Who on earth is this Martin Cole? I just visited his website and found a demented anti-Cameron cesspit. Almost Hefferite in its confused vituperation.

[Tony Makara]

The ConHome policy of moderating comments does two things. It provides for a proper intelligent debate and it eradicates the fifth columnists. Many of the posts prior to moderation were just out and out personal attacks on David Cameron which can't have made the best impression on people visiting this site looking for information on the Conservative party. Imagine some young voter coming to see what the Conservatives are all about and seeing the leader being butchered by his own party! Moderation has been a great success and the Conservative party is now looking like a force rather than a farce.

[Simon Newman]

I'm one of those who registered 'dissatisfied' on that poll, the first time I had voted that way. Even at the time I was glad you'd suppressed my opinion, though! Definitely the right decision.

[Simon Newman]

Drusilla:
"At the same time, though, it's surely possible to lament the absence of a truly independent, transparent, straight-up forum in which the grassroots of the Conservative Party, as well as critics and waverers, can express their views without fear of a style of mediation all the more dangerous for being subtle, understated and apparently benign."

Personally I'm fine with being censored here if the Editor thinks it's for the good of the Conservative party. Presumably we all self-censor depending on where we are anyway, right?

[HF]

To respond to those who queried my list of those responsible for the summer shambles.

Willetts, He did not need to attack Grammar Schools. It was a dumb move by a man who simply lacks political judgement.

Letwin, On numerous occasions he also demonstrates an absence of political judgement. Having policy proposals aired to provide ammunition to our critics was just crass stupidity. He went on to say drug dealers are victims.

Mercer and Bercow, this prize pair allowed themselves to be duped by Brown. A victory of personal vanity over common sense.

Ancram a single disloyal act by a person who should have known better.

and then there is David Cameron. His mistakes were to trust Hilton over Africa, Letwin on policy, Willetts on Schools and Grant Shapps on Ealing Southall. They let him and us down. Cameron's other mistake was to lose his temper with the party over the grammar schools which will not happen again. Minor faults in trusting people who he had appointed. He will know that their judgement is faulty in some key aspects and he will be stronger because of this.

And look at how well Cameron is doing now. The appointment of Coulson was a very smart move and we are now hearing "approved" policies, not the wacky summer nonsense.

[ACT]

It's hard to know what's worse about this post - that it's so utterly self-righteous, or, that it's quite so self-regarding. Take the latter first: gosh you're pleased with yourself for having been so responsible, aren't you? But that brings us straight back to the self-righteousness, for who's to say what's fit and proper for this site's readers to be trusted to read? Well, you, it turns out, are God's annointed in this instance. But that's a bit odd, inasmuch as Dave's cheerleaders on this board have several times denounced posts for being 'unhelpful', or 'disloyal' or 'nakedly factional', or, in their fevered imaginings, for basically being dictated by a secret committee of John Hayes, Stefan Shakespeare & Nick Wood. So why did those sorts of posts go up and stay up? Because we were outside "possible election time"? Nonsense - because you saw them as fitting your agenda, and the heat for posting them was perfectly bearable. Whereas rocking the boat before an autumn election the Party was still all too likely to lose wasn't really worth it, was it? Not when you'd have hoped to try and exert some influence in the subsequent leadership election, and wouldn't have wanted to be diverted dealing with the (absurd) charge that you, rather than Dave, were one of the guilty men responsible for helping a 'divided' party lose such an election.

Still, this post does do a number of sterling things: 1.) we won't ever again have to hear another platitude about 'the wisdom of crowds' - certainly not that of the crowds who read CH, as political children like them plainly can't be trusted with frightening facts; 2.) the absolute disconnect between an enterprise like CH and anything that calls itself journalism is fully demonstrated - any hack who sat on a story like this would rightly be laughed to death; & 3.) any need to take seriously your polls is gone for good. Obviously we now know we just can't trust your presentation of the 'facts' that result from them.

Thus tonight I'd suggest some contemplation of pride, with 1 Kings, Chp 20, verse 11 being as good a place as any to start.

[Editor]

It wasn't an easy decision not to publish and in normal circumstances we would have published but this was the eve of a make-or-break conference and I can't see publication of those numbers helping anyone other than Mr Brown. We conduct this series so that the grassroots' voice can be heard. Sam and I thought the leadership understood the gravity of the situation by then and us publishing wouldn't have added to that understanding but certainly would have created bad headlines.

[Mr Angry]

Bit Pravda like for me I'm afraid Tim.

[Edison Smith]

It wasn't an easy decision not to publish and in normal circumstances we would have published but this was the eve of a make-or-break conference and I can't see publication of those numbers helping anyone other than Mr Brown.

Excellent decision guys. It would no doubt have been plastered all over the press to the detriment of conference.

Your discretion does you credit.

It seems that week, we of the centre-right played a blinder all round!

[Mike A]

Well done, Tim.

You make an excellent case for further disenfranchising our loony membership.

[ACT]

'We conduct this series so that the grassroots' voice can be heard', by you alone it turns out. As the poor old grass roots can't be trusted to hear what they've said. Oh well, when the Party doesn't like it's leader, what's to be done? Four years ago, this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/29/newsid_3722000/3722714.stm - was the wrong answer. Pretending now that the Party isn't profoundly resentful about the way Cameron has treated it for the last two years is equally foolish. I want us to win the next election, but am sadly confident that my money (long ago, at good odds, plumped on a 4th majority Labour term) is safe, precisely because of Cameron's persistent inadequacies. Keeping quiet about a problem doesn't solve it, it simply let's it get worse.

[Alan Douglas]

I was certainly an anti-DC in this poll. You were quite right to delay the timing of its release, and I have become pro-DC since his excellent speech, not because of its presentation (spin) but because of its clear demonstration of a consistent theme behind the current Conservative thinking.

You are also courageous to release this confession and information now, and yes, if it points up a massive change when the October figures are released, I call that good news management and very responsible too.

Don't tell me that Liebour NEVER time announcements ? Brown to Iraq mid Tory-conference, so many bad facts released on one Friday as parliament breaks up, "Good day to bury bad news" etc etc.

Not to mention all the real budget facts only discovered AFTER the so-called budget speeches of our beloved pickpocket, once the full written document is fine-tooth-combed ? Bah.

Alan Douglas

[George Eustice's Shroud]

"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." WSC

[Guy Atherton]

ACT - grow up. It isn`t that CH members cannot be trusted with news. The perfectly understandable fear was that media organisations (such as the BBC) would have ran with the story. Also bear in mind the margin of error which could mean slightly more are satisfied than unsatisfied. Also this was based on one moment in time and views change - I think the past 6 weeks have aptly demonstrated that!

[Patriot]

Tim - you made the right call. Well done.

[tiles]

Spot on HF!

Eustice also gave bad advice on Rwanda (although only parroting Hilton)

Coulson's appointment was the best thing to happen to the party in the last six months. They have hardly put a foot wrong since Grammar and Rwanda debacles.

Glad to see that Coulson is now upping the game of the press office and hopefully clearing deadwood and bringing in talent!

[Gwendolyn]

I think the only mistake you made was to hold the poll in the first place. ConHome's position is quite different to any other arm of the media because it is perceived as being the voice of the party - and in a sense is in an uncomfortable situation by being the first point of call for the rest of the media to use it as ammunition. Therefore as a matter of fairness to have damned the conference with that aspect of the poll you chose not to portray would have had an effect quite out of proportion to anything that might have been said elsewhere, by other bloggers. You are in the uncomfortable position of being regarded as chapter and verse. I think that such is your position you should adopt the French way of not holding a poll in the last week before the vote - a move I always thought scandlous but begin now to see the point! After all, there are enough people who come on to this blog to duff up our party, why give them encouragement?

[Drusilla]

ACT - grow up. It isn`t that CH members cannot be trusted with news. The perfectly understandable fear was that media organisations (such as the BBC) would have ran with the story. Also bear in mind the margin of error which could mean slightly more are satisfied than unsatisfied. Also this was based on one moment in time and views change - I think the past 6 weeks have aptly demonstrated that!

Well, polls turn out to be based upon one moment in time, views change and there are margins of error to consider. Who knew?

What we do all know, now, is that when information fails to appear here, it's probably because it's unfavourable for the leadership - the interests of the leadership apparently being far more significant than those of the Party, or indeed of conservatism more generally. The media may be malign but they are not, invariably, stupid, and may in time - especially now that the Editor has helpfully pointed out his methodology to them - come to find the silences here even more richly eloquent than the posts.

[Traditional Tory]

I used to describe Cameron's majority in the polls as 'soft'.

'Soft' was a massive understatement. 'Raving bonkers' might be more to the point.

Cameron's majority then became Brown's majority and now it is (allegedly) back to Cameron again. I have little doubt that many of these paragons of indecision will eventually end up in Clegg's woolly but resurgent LibDems.

One thing is pretty certain, however. If an 8% lead over Labour would give Cameron a 2-seat majority (as stated on another thread) the chances of the Conservatives gaining any majority at all under the present system are slim indeed.

Time to join the LibDems call for PR, I would suggest.

[Christina M]

There are principles and there is wisdom. As ACT has posted a Bible verse, in the Old Testament about how a man shouldn't boast when he puts on his sword as if he has just taken it off, we should remember that we are in the New Testament period now.

The New Testament tells us that Jesus deliberately spoke to the crowds in parables so that those opposed to Him would not understand. It seems that He did not want to give His enemies ammunition until the right time.

Wise decision, guys.

[Malcolm Dunn]

ACT ,it's Tim's site and he can do whatever he wants with it. As someone who actually want's the Conservative party to win the next election I think he made the right decision.
Part of the appeal of CH for me though is the fact that its editorial is completely independant of the party hierarchy and can sometimes be fairly or unfairly critical of it.
Mike A,I used to think from your posts that you were an employee of the party.Have you been sacked?

[Londoner]

Well I hope the 49% realise how stupid they look now. I am proud to have been amongst the 48% proved correct.

[ACT]

Actually, it's not Tim's site, it's Stefan's site. But that's by the by. My point wasn't about whether or not Tim could manipulate his poll findings as he saw fit. Of course he can, and as he foolishly told us, he did*. My points, such as they were, concerned what that tells us about Tim. And it all boils down to what we put first: Toryism or the Tory Party (accepting that both things come a long way behind the truly important things in life)? For Tim it's the latter, for me it's the former. I don't say that this makes me a better or a worse person than him, simply a different one.

*Incidentally, if anyone doesn't find this discreditable, just ask yourselves how you'd be reacting if LabourHome had done the equivalent, or if Labour had done something comparable, or the Guardian, or the NHS, or anyone else.

[Anthony Broderick]

Londoner and ACT are both wrong imo.
Londoner- thats far too simplistic. Who's to say that the stats don't mean that David Cameron was wrong and is now right? He listened to members frustration and as a result he is more popular with them and with the public at large.
ACT- you repeat the false statement that the poll results were manipulated- they weren't! Isn't it creditable rather than foolish that Tim openyl said what happened? It was a one-off situation and his response served both Toryism and the Tory party.
I agree with Ay Up. You can't please everyone!

[Londoner]

I support what Tim did, but it may have been a bit unfortunate now to point it out so explicitly. When there are turbulent times again, won't people now be looking very closely to see which bits of his "poll" he has not published, and then possibly drawing wild conclusions accordingly?

I think Tim was perhaps straining a bit too much to show that he had been responsible, no doubt in response to the lash of those who say he is Labour's best (unconscious) friend. I find I agree with what Tim does, except, naturally, on issues with which I disagree with him.

[passing leftie]

Holding back important survey results?
Worth 5%

Telling us about it afterwards?
Priceless!

[Sean Fear]

It was the right decision, in the circumstances. Had it been published before the conference, it would have been a very prominent story in the media, and very unhelpful to the Conservative Party.

Had it not been eve of conference, then it would have been wrong not to publish the finding.

[Editor]

Precisely Sean. Thank you. In the run up to elections extra discipline is required and we'll continue to display it. But in the in-between times the poll results will always be disclosed in the interests of responsible internal debate.