The enthusiasm challenge

Today's YouGov survey is confirmation that the strong surge in Tory support that we saw after the Budget has been largely maintained.  Labour are 14% behind the Conservatives.  Years of spin'n'squander are finally being reflected in Labour's opinion poll rating.   It is also to David Cameron's credit that the main beneficiary of Labour unpopularity is the Conservative Party.  The LibDems remain subdued under their new leader.  After 100 days of Nick Clegg the party is stuck on 18% in the ConservativeHome poll of polls.

Where there is still work to do is in generating enthusiasm for a Conservative government.  Last month we discovered that 82% of Tory members thought that voters were unhappy with Labour but were yet to become enthusiastic about the prospect of a Conservative government.  The detail of the YouGov survey confirms that.  The graphic shows that Project Cameron's reassurance strategy (most exemplified by 'disarming' on tax and the NHS) has produced a significant drop in the number of people who would be "dismayed" at the prospect of a Tory government and a big increase in those who "wouldn't mind".  Those who would be "delighted" if Cameron became PM hasn't changed that much, however.  25% would be delighted - just 3% more than said the same about Michael Howard in 2005.  PoliticalBetting has been looking at similar numbers and notes that only 61% of Tory supporters would be "delighted" at a Tory victory; 36% wouldn't mind.

None of this matters if the other parties don't find a way of enthusing voters but it might matter if they do.  We cannot assume that unhappy voters will always flock bluewards.  They can also stay at home or vote Liberal Democrat.  Time is on the Tories' side but our support is currently much broader than it is deep.

Comments

[David]

Which isn't necessarily a problem when it comes to winning elections. After 1997, there were a slew of articlesby academics about how Blair's vote was broad rather than deep.

[Malcolm Dunn]

This poll does indicate that the 'decontantamination' strategy appears to have worked well.To have had more than half the country actively disliking us in 2005 was an absolute disaster.
Do you know if similar data exists for other years?

[Michael McGowan]

I don't believe that Blair's support was broad not deep in 1997. It was the first election in living memory when large numbers of deluded middle class voters were queueing up to vote for Labour. The dislike of John Major's admittedly inept Government was also very deep-seated. I do not detect equivalent dislike of Labour, even in a recession, which is not surprising because the Conservatives are not offering much by way of an alternative.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Interesting to note that in a by election yesterday (Abbotts Langley PC, Leavesden) the Liberal Democrat candidate collected 91.6% of the vote. Is this a record? Labour got 8.4%.

[Editor]

I'm not convinced by the value of comparisons with 1997.

Because of the electoral geography we need to win more convincingly in order to get a reasonable majority and the third party is now much stronger.

Blair only had to reassure. We probably need to do more.

[David Cooper]

So how to turn the "wouldn't minds" into "delighteds"? One answer - just to take up Michael's concluding point - is to make a better job of explaining how we would make a difference, and to show a clear aim to do so rather than simply to aspire to manage the current wreckage better than the wreckers (I'm sure there is a more diplomatic way of expressing that, but it's late on a Friday afternoon...).

[London Tory]

Comparisons to 1997 are not that far off the mark. John Major's government was rightly despised. I am coming across more and more people who say that they cannot stand Brown. And what makes it even better is that Labour won't ditch him in time, and The Great Clunking Fist himself is incapable of changing.

For a sure sign that the Left are realising that they have backed a loser, just read the increasingly hysterical smearing and scaremongering from the likes of Freedland, Ashley, Toynbee [of course] and Mike White [Blakey].

Roll on 2010.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yes I tend to agree with David Cooper above @ 16.31

I suppose the fear has partly been that going in strongly for any one area that needs drastic overhaul or a new initiative, would lead to either the idea being pinched - as has already happened - or to a concerted 'rubbishing' of said policy by media and enemy. Perhaps, now that more people seem to see the Conservative party slightly differently, would be the time to introduce a policy in depth, concerning some area.

[David]

"It was the first election in living memory when large numbers of deluded middle class voters were queueing up to vote for Labour."

The traditional sense of the word 'deep' with respect to electoral support typically means some form of positive, active attachment to the values of the party being voted for. Indeed, Blair attempted this by positioning New Labour as 'nothing less than the political arm of the British people'.

As you point out, there was a visceral hatred of the Tories by that time. As such, the point was that there was not so much a positive vote but a negative vote, which coudl in some ways be seen by the prevalence of negative voting. Hence the analysis by some of the vote for the Blair government in 1997 being broad; the numbers were not necessarily reflective of a deep endearment.

Point being, a broad rather than deep vote is not necessarily a bar to winning an election.

[Robert Thompson]

Surely a broad coalition of support is what is needed to win an election? It is simply unrealistic to think that any party is going to have the ardent support of 40% of the country. It maybe trite to say it but it is no less true for being so but "governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them".

Even the 1997 result had more far more to do with dislike of the Major government than it had any particular enthusiasm for New Labour. All an opposition can do is position itself effectively to get the support of a government's former voters and Cameron and his team have done all that could reasonably be expected of them to do this.

[Robert Thompson]

Surely a broad coalition of support is what is needed to win an election? It is simply unrealistic to think that any party is going to have the ardent support of 40% of the country. It maybe trite to say it but it is no less true for being so but "governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them".

Even the 1997 result had more far more to do with dislike of the Major government than it had any particular enthusiasm for New Labour. All an opposition can do is position itself effectively to get the support of a government's former voters and Cameron and his team have done all that could reasonably be expected of them to do this.

[Matt Wright]

I think we can honestly say our strategy has been correct. That does not mean it shouldn't develop and no doubt the next stage is in the making.

Matt

[Michael McGowan]

But isn't the point, David, that what you describe as the "traditional" sense of "deep" (i.e. positively subscribing to a set of values) no longer holds? Labour were the first to realise this when in 1997 Blair was successfully marketed above all as a charismatic icon. As all three parties have largely converged on most issues, their attempts to engender lasting loyalty have largely revolved around personality. There was in my view a deep if deluded attachment to Blair the great actor in 1997. The Tories have tried to whip up a similar frenzy for Cameron and the Lib Dems elected Clegg for just this reason.

[David Belchamber]

Luckily we have quite a few agreeable people in the party, unlike Nulab who have very few who you would like to meet at a dinner party.

If we could convince more people that a conservative government would strive for greater integrity, then I think we would be much more welcome than we already are.

Add to that competence and some strong policies, based on common sense and social justice, and we would thoroughly deserve to kick this inept bunch out.

[Roger Kingston]

Only 25% would be delighted by a Tory win is seriously worrying, ignore the other figures! If under the marxist ravages of McBrown and co the Tories are not up in the 40 to 50% then something is very wrong.
Perhaps if DC was to agree to:
1. Total transparency of MP's pay, funding and expenses.
2. To talk about solutions to the pension crisis.
3. To improving the income to expenses cost of living ratio.
4. To actually having more coppers like Gene Hunt back on the streets to keep us safe.
5. To actually del with the CHAV culture.
6 To genuinely care about the welfare of the elderly and pensioners.
Perhaps just some of the above might push that figure of 25 % delight upwards. Dave, you will ignore this warning at your peril.

[Oscar Miller]

Lack of delight could also reflect the whole disenchantment with politics at the moment. I notice no-one was asked if they'd be 'delighted' or 'dismayed' by a Labour government. It's going to take a lot to win back the trust of the electorate. They aren't in the mood to do 'delight' about anyone in the current climate. Growing respect for the Tories would be a good start.

[John Coles]

""Luckily we have quite a few agreeable people in the party, unlike Nulab who have very few who you would like to meet at a dinner party.""

What an extraordinary comment, straight out of the 1950s mindset. Too much like class politics for me.

[DBX]

The British don't like sleaze, authoritarianism, vindictiveness or pettiness. They put up with basically the second and third of those points from Thatcher, got all four from the Major government, and they're getting the same four-way bitter pill from NuLabor. There wasn't a lot of broad enthusiasm for the NuLabor experiment even at the best of times; it is, however, much too early to compare Webcameron to NuLabor. It is important for the Tories to understand which aspects of NuLabor are most liable to induce vomiting among voters. I suspect centralising diktat, campaign money laundering, transport policy, bioethics, and billions wasted on outsourcing are probably high on the list. But some of those were features of the Thatcher years too, and others have not been sufficiently challenged by Cameron.

My sense is that the current moderate-centre-right line of the Tory Party holds a lot of promise. The British and particularly the English are instinctively centrist but torn between suspicion of authority and desire for stability; it's complicated but there is MORE THAN ENOUGH material there for the Tory party to work with as long as it doesn't get too hung up on past glories.

[Lyndon Elias]

The government's proposed revenue take from Income Tax is £160bn; Crossrail's projected cost £16bn or 10%. Scrapping Crossrail will reduce income tax by ten pence in the pound, less cancellation fees.

Just tell Boris.
Yours,
LE

[Serf]

The word delighted is too strong. If there were a pleased option as well, the numbers might be different.

Think about those of us here who are broadly supportive of David Cameron, though at time critical (the editor would fall into that category). If asked in such a survey would we agree with the word delighted? I would sometimes but other times I would just be pleased.

[DBX]

Lyndon, are you being ironic or mischievous? The maths in your comment would even make the accountants at Enron or Bear Stearns blush.