Cameronism 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0

Iain Murray has been defending Cameronism from some of its critics on The Corner blog in the USA.  Here are two of his observations:

Iain Murray replying to Jonah Goldberg: "I think if you'd asked me about a year ago I'd have agreed with you. The Conservatives were talking like New Labour and trying to take advantage of the unpopularity of the government that is always associated with a long time in power. It didn't work, though. After Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair, in September and October last year he was riding high. If he'd called an election then, Brown would have seen Labour re-elected with a bigger majority than Tony Blair and he would have destroyed David Cameron's claim to be a viable alternative. This concentrated the Conservative mind wonderfully. Starting at the party conference in October last year, the Tories started advancing genuinely conservative policies on tax, crime and education, for example. Yes, Brown proved to have a political ear as tinny as Al Gore's, but the Tory decontamination of the brand (Cameron's genuine acheivement) meant that people reacted well to Conservative policies for the first time in 15 years. Boris is a solid conservative (with a small 'c') and Labour attempted to use this to paint him as the bastard son of Cruella de Ville and Lord Voldemort. It didn't work. Nor did people turn to the Liberal Democrats. People are not just tuning out Labour, they are willing to listen to conservatives advancing conservative thought again. And about time, too."

And again, Iain Murray: "I think it has gone ignored in most places (mainly because it is unspoken) that we are now in Cameronism 2.0 (possibly even Cameronism 2.1). Cameronism 1.0 made the party acceptable in polite company, but advanced no conservative ideals and therefore secured no electoral advantage. It died in October last year just before the party conference. Cameronism 2.0 does advance recognizable consertavive ideals, as is evidenced by the crime, education and above all tax policies. It has secured a sustained electoral advantage. I - the author of a "red meat" book decrying green environmentalism - am willing to put up with a superficial green tinge for that."

The Times' Danny Finkelstein should note Iain's valid point about the differences between Cameronism 1.0 and Cameronism 2.0.  On Friday - rather confrontationally - Danny blogged: "The modernisers were right. Their critics were wrong."  In part, that's true.  Some of us - who helped found the Centre for Social Justice, for example - have always been modernisers-of-sorts (and attacked the lop-sided nature of Howard 2005, here and here) but we worried that Cameron 1.0 was leaving too much authentic conservatism behind.  Remember the Greg Dyke fiasco?  The complete silence on immigration.  The embrace of green taxes, the opposition to nuclear power - both largely dropped now.  Key über-modernisers in the leader's inner circle vehemently opposed to the inheritance tax announcement were over-ruled during last autumn's Brown honeymoon.  And thank goodness they were.

The collapse of Brown means that the political case for a hare-like approach is weaker than it was but the state of Britain is still going to require a bold Conservatism once we are in power.  Let's not count electoral chickens either: If a week is a long time in politics then anything could happen in the two years between now and the likely date for the General Election.  What should the party look like in May 2010?  From Monday 12th May ConservativeHome will be thinking about this.  Perhaps we should think of it as Cameronism 3.0?

Comments

[Jennifer Wells]

If Brown is dumped, replaced by Johnson, the next election could still be difficult. We have to keep improving our pitch.

[David]

"we worried that Cameron 1.0 was leaving too much authentic conservatism behind"

This is your fundamental problem, really; you've decreed that your narrow view of conservatism is the only authentic one there is.

[Logical conclusions]

Your idea of an authentic conservative was Greg Dyke then I take it David?

[Will Stobart]

Cameronism 3.0?

Good idea. Now that the public sees us in a more positive light, we might be able to move away from the centre in the near future :)

[Editor]

Because, Will, this can't just be about politics and winning an election.

By 2010 we need to have moved much closer to a manifesto that will genuinely start to fix Britain's broken society and economy.

[CCHQ Spy]

This is my take on the three stages:

Cameronism 1.0: The phase of decontamination. It proved that the party had changed. It was greener, more female friendly and less aggressive than what it replaced.

Cameronism 2.0: The phase that put the traditional themes back but in a new way. Lower tax was back but no unfunded tax cuts. Crime came back but with tough love for the young offender. Immigration was back but with sensitive language. The core issues returned in 2.0 but they had been modernized. The rough edges from 1.0 were also removed. Green taxes and anti-nuclear dropped: as the editors write above. We also saw an angrier Cameron in the return of Punch & Judy.

Cameronism 3.0: A phase that puts more flesh on the bones. The "policy striptease" we were promised yesterday. The phase that moves us into being the government that the British people want.

[John Leonard]

Jennifer Wells:

Perhaps, but do you not think that the electorate might have something to say if Labour try and foist another 3rd rate political pygmy (Adam Boulton's words not mine) on the country without an electoral mandate?

If Labour replace Brown, this line of attack must be to the fore, whoever replaces him. The country cannot afford to wait until Labour sorts its act out (if it ever can in the short/ medium term) in what is a critical period of economic uncertainty.

If Labour replace their leader we must demand a General Election and use every method available to get one!

This country needs strong leadership right now and there is no chance Labour can provide it with or without Brown.

[Not Boris]

Cameronism 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0? There is no consistency to "Cameronism". First there was Blairism then Greenism and now Opportunism. The appointment of Boles to run City Hall is Cronyism.

[Soren]

There is no Cameron 1.0 and 2.0 -- just some learning from mistakes and a strengthening of the top team.

The only real discontinuity came with the temporary inflation and spectacular bursting of the Brown bubble.

But leaving that aside -- let's just examine the notion that Cameron 1.0 secured "no electoral advantage."

Has Iain Murray completely forgotten last year's local elections -- when we made net gain of over 900 councillors?

I'm afraid this whole analysis just looks desparate.

[CCHQ Spy]

You're being too touchy Soren,

2.0 versus 1.0 doesn't imply a totally different product but an improvement... an upgrade.

3.0 and 4.0 will be betterments too and will retain the best of what went before.

[Will Stobart]

"Because, Will, this can't just be about politics and winning an election.

By 2010 we need to have moved much closer to a manifesto that will genuinely start to fix Britain's broken society and economy."

I sincerely hope so. However if he does go back on spending commitments or on taxation ideas, it will provoke the Labour benches to go on about inconsistencies, lies etc. We might just have to grit our teeth and bear Cameronism 2.0 for the next term (there's no doubt that the election can be won with it) and then concentrate on Cameronism 3.0 for a 2014 election or thereabouts.

The fact is that a change at this point would be a risk. And I can't see Cameron as a risk taker. Never mind what he says about tough decisions, I doubt he will take them.

Nevertheless, we do still have a duty to stay with Cameron, he's brought back the brand of Conservatism and we must give him credit and support for this. The future will show what will happen to the party and the ideology, but the simple fact that so many party members want to move it to the right (if only slightly) almost guarantees that this will happen in the future.

[Christina Speight]

This is special pleading for Cameron with a vengeance.

Cameron did NOTHING to gain those council seats - Labour under Brown threw them away and Cameron smugly picked them up as if it had been anything to with him. His contribution then and subsequently is like the song "Anything you can do, I can do better"

All Cameron did was sit tight, saying nothing at all and scavenging successes from the corpses of fallen Labour seats.

The election was won by the Tories without a single decisive theme to attract more votes. Indeed this morning the party merely talks of “Labour has let people down and we can be a better government”.

That’s it folks. No dream; no theme; no ‘Get off the backs of the people’; no ‘Let people run their own lives’; no ‘Lift the tax burden’ or even ‘Make taxes fairer’. Just ‘we can run Labour’s failed system better than they do’. What an inspiration ! What a rallying cry to fight for!

Poll after poll shows that the public want a radical change of direction, but they won’t get it with Cameron. He is wedded to ignoring them just as NewLabour have done for 11 years. He will benefit over the belated crisis over the 10p tax band. He will gain from rows over the 42 day detention period. He could possibly gain from an upset in the Crewe by-election. But these are all sound and fury signifying nothing.

Meanwhile Cameron is stubborn in refusing to respond forcefully to the demand of 85% of the population for a referendum on the EU Constitution. He will not spell out what his policy is and he has left it to Hague to welcome, very quietly, Stuart Wheeler’s brilliant attempt to put a spoke in the wheels of the Eurocrats. If he had really cared about this it would have been David Cameron standing up for Britain in the courts.

I like my local Tories - they are wedded to cutting taxes and have done so . But I have no time for the wet Cameroons now basking in the sunshine not of anything they have done but of Labour idiocies.

[Will Stobart]

Christina, the fact remains that the general public is still sceptical about the values of centre-right conservatism. We can complain about the lack of vision of Cameronism, but the sheer fact remains that he has succeeded where others have failed. You might argue that this is because the general public has woken up to the Labour failings, and I agree with you, it is most certainly part of it.

However we also have to accept that politics today has a lot to do with presentation. Cameron is selling the brand of conservatism to the British people. While it's a very centrist conservatism, the fact remains that Cameron is bringing us back into a position from which we can win an election.

In general, I can't stand Cameron or Osborne either, however we now find ourself in this situation, so we must now deal with it. Their policies may yet change.

Where we most certainly have to learn a lesson is from New Labour. The values of Old Labour have never been brought back, and we have to ensure that many of the old values of conservatism are not lost. This is why we have to make sure that we work with Cameron and not against Cameron, because to split the party would help noone.

[friedmanite]

CCHQ's spy's 14:14 post would be funny if this sort of thing wasn't believed by people who should know better.

Pre-Cameron the Tory party was not "aggressive" (unless we're going back to Churchill, who was rather aggressive towards Nazi's) or anti-woman (Margeret Thatcher, anyone in CCHQ heard of her? She was a woman, and the Tory party chose her as its leader. Look her up on Wikipedia). And I believe IDS won praise from environmental groups for some of his policies, so Cameron wasn't the first "green" leader either.

As for the "traditional themes", Cameron has not made the case for low tax at all. This would involve explaining how the size of the state should be shrunk--because activities such as health and education can be delivered more effectively by the market-- and explaining how cuts in tax rates need not result in lower revenues (e.g. Ireland). The promise of "no unfunded tax cuts" is nothing more than was promised by Hague and Howard, the only question was whether people believed the explanation of how the taxes would be paid for. In my opinion, this was less important than the fact the tax cuts were small (not worth much to a household) but added up to a lot in terms of nurses etc. Cameron looks set to make this same mistake again, with small "targeted" tax cuts alongside an ever growing public sector.

As for immigration, everyone since Enoch Powell has used "sensitive language". The only difference is that Cameron rails against immigrants for having the nerve to use public services (which most have them will have paid for out of taxation) and that its now politically correct to be anti-immigrant because most immigrants are hard working white people from Eastern Europe.

What I would like to see from Cameron 3.0 is less b.s. and more straight talk, a la John McCain (or Norman Tebbit, depending on your taste).

[StevenAdams]

christina speight:

Quite frankly, your diatribe above just flies in the face of all evidence, and other presumptious comments upon here about 'conservatism' being some lost value just make me bridle.

If you cannot recognise the job that DC has done in repositioning the party in the eyes of the electorate, and the direct link between that and May 1st results then I really despair. If this country was so convinced that speight-conservatism would work for them, the NHS and other public services, then why were excellent politicians such as Hague and Howard so roundly rubuffed? They were rebuffed because they didnt like the policies and they didnt like the presentation.

Under DC the language of the party is more moderate, the presentation FAR more accomplished an the policies are being reacted to differently.

Has it not been the Cons that have owned the inheritance 'theft' debate, led the referendum debate (despite your lack of recognition of this... who else is leading it, the LibDems abstentions?! The Cabinet briefing against itself maybe?!), even the debate on the NHS over-bureaucracy and thoroughly useless govt deep cleansing initiative! Never have the Cons had the credibility to lead this latter debate and we do now only because of DC.

I become exasperated when I read about people missing Conservatism... for they really don't grasp how much party discipline and work has been employed in getting us where we are today.

[Christina Speight]

Will Stobart @ 1528 Cameron is at present not selling anything. He's sitting there waiting for the next disaster to befall Labour. He has no vision and nobody has the slightest idea what he believes in except that he'll manage Labour's policies better than they can. He is not "selling the brand of Conservatism". He's not selling anything at all - he's an empty vessel. He can't even get his European policy together when he has an open goal

I remain to be convinced that the gains made on Thursday (London is a totally separate issue) that the Tories got any more people to vote for them than the last time those seats were fought. FIGURES please (not percentages)

You say "we have to make sure that we work with Cameron and not against Cameron" WHY? He's proposing to lead us down the same failed policy path. So why back him?

As to Steven Adams@1646 you start off on the wrong foot when you say "presumptious comments upon here about 'conservatism' being some lost value just make me bridle" . Since I never used any such words I must assume you are thinking of someone else. So bridle away!

Hague hadn 't a hope from the start. IHe got the job too soon. As for Howard he was up against an apparently successful Tony Blair not the walking disaster that is Brown. If Cameron can't win against Brown he would be beyond a joke. May 1st was in no way due to Cameron. He was gathering the spoils of dead Labourites scavenged from the battlefield. They were already dead as doornails before Cameron claimed a party victory.

As for the referendum Cameron has said virtually nothing - he's left moist of it to Hague. He's not even been gracious enough about the superlative efforts of Wheeler. All he has done is to USE the referendum promise as a stick - not to get a referendum - but to (rightly) beat Brown with. He has promised months ago that "we will not leave it there" while flatly refusing to say anything more. Many of us smell betrayal aided and abetted by psychophant Cameroons.

[David Sergeant]

"May 1st was in no way due to Cameron."

Posted by: Christina Speight | May 05, 2008 at 17:46

Ms, Speight (and others) I contemplated giving you a serious answer like some, more patient, people above. However, I have come to the conclusion that you must be a Labour troll and having us on. What you say is not so much rubbish but completely disconected from reality. Only a lefty Labour supporter could try to invent such mythical scenarios in order justify silly conclusions.

Desparately trying to figure if there is some intelegence somewhere in what you write I could guess that as a Labour troll you have realised that the sort of stuff you write is what has put voters off the Tories for about 15 years so you are writing more in ConHome to put people off who read the site. It is that bad.

[Mark Hudson]

The results on 1st May were, certainly, in part due to Cameron. He has clearly attracted centre / centre-left voters who were not previously supporters of the Conservative Party. This said, the fundamental cause was Brown and the accelerating disintegration of New Labour. Mind you, the turnout at 35% was as piffling as usual and rather reflects the fact that most of the UK is unimpressed with Dave, Nick and Gordon. If there were a ballot paper line called None of The Above, it would win by a landslide.

David Sergeant. If you are going to be quite so vituperative, would you please invest in a dictionary and thesaurus? I don't know where you were educated, but your post is borderline illiterate.

[Iain Murray]

The Spy is correct when he says that 3.0 and 4.0 will be improvements. I don't think we're looking at Cameron Vista at any point soon.

As for Soren's point, success and advantage are not the same thing. In May 2003, IDS delivered local election gains way better than anyone, with over 500 new councillors and Labour losing 800. We don't need to be reminded of what happened in the ensuing couple of years. By refining his product, as it were, David Cameron has now got that sustainable electoral advantage. I'm bemused at the attacks that have come my way from self-declared Cameronites for saying that Cameron is doing well and is getting better...

[David Sergeant]

"David Sergeant. If you are going to be quite so vituperative, would you please invest in a dictionary and thesaurus? I don't know where you were educated, but your post is borderline illiterate"

Grammar school actually. Thought we were debating politics here, please stick to the subject Mark Hudson. Writing the above and at the same time losing your rag about landslides, come, come.

[Mark Hudson]

Ah, grammar schools. I have heard of such places.

I was not losing my rag about landslides. It is simply the fact that there is no real enthusiasm for any political party at the moment. It certainly does not feel like the period of 1994-1997. Most people seem to take the view that all political parties are as bad as each other and politicians a venal, corrupt, self-seeking sub-class. I have sympathy with both.

[Christina Speight]

David Sergeant - Silly man - attack me because you can't answer my arguments. I use my real name and you can check me. I was in CCO when we "Set The People Free" and kicked Attlee's lot out, We had a vision and we saw what socialism did to it. I fought more elections and been an election agent (for jimmy Edwards in North Paddington !! that was a laugh ) than most on this list and especially more than the half-baked Cameroons.

You don't give a single reason why you disagree with what I said. What DOES Cameron believe in then? Nobody knows except that he is a Blair clone and wants to do the same but a bit better.

How is he supposed to have done anything for May 1? DID the Tories get more votes than last time and if so, the figures please.

Mark Hudson at least has his eyes open and Mr Sergeant I would suggest you open yours to reality. there is NO enthusiasm for Cameron outside the teenage scribblers in CCHQ

[David]

"I was in CCO when we "Set The People Free" and kicked Attlee's lot out"

That's quite amusing, since Cameron is arguably a return to the one-nation style Conservatism of that era.

[robert]

Christina,
Succinctly put. Yes, in many ways you are right! The usual drivel / excuse for not articulating at least the thrust of our policies does not stand up to scrutiny. NOW is the time to give people positive reasons why they should vote Conservative!

[robert]

David,
One Nation Toryism is quite similiar to Gordon Brown's philosophy of 'we' (the current establishment) know better, umm I wonder? You should read Janet Daly today in the Torygraph, alot of what she says should resonate - she as writes with alot of commonsense.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Not sure I agree with Iain Murray's assesment entirely. I do think we have learned from our mistakes over the past two years but I also think that the last two sets of local elections and the Mayoral electoral were very light on policy not just from us but also our opponents too. It's as if all parties are scared to frighten or offend anybody. Not an ideal situation but Cameron has to deal with the world as it is not as he would want it to be. Yet again he has been successful and the lack of generosity from some of his right wing critics would be funny if it were not so sad. Cameron's primary task as leader of the opposition is to WIN AN ELECTION. Got that? How hard is it to understand? If he can't do that he can't do anything. To do that he has to build coalitions of people and coalitions of ideas. He's done that. Disillusioned people who were voting for Labour candidates could have voted for the BNP,the Lib Dems or UKIP. They didn't.All 3 parties did very badly,we did well.Why Christina Speight or Mark Hudson did you think that was? A half sensible answer would be appreciated.

[olivepeel]

The many not the few.

But Poly T and White et al are the few. That is the heart of the issue and opportunity.

In London the C1 and C2 no longer see Labour as the many.

Can the Tories fill this space? Seems that the C class has made Boris the political experiment.

[David Sergeant]

Christina Speight, Mark Hudson and Robert as well. O.K. you are not Labour trolls and, Christina, I seem to recall some months back your extoling the virtues of UKIP. I am guessing you have given up on UKIP having found people are not interested so you have returned.

We have been here before on tax and Europe. In both cases the Cameron way scored the points. Can I suggest to all three that you say exactly what you think Cameron should say rather than complain he hasn't said something. But please be careful with facts, e.g. what "poll after polls show people want a radical change of direction"? And, to be sensible, recognise that Cameron had something to do with the election wins.

[Jon]

Ignoring London and looking only at the locals, the Conservatives got 44% of the vote on a 35% turnout. So, of everyone eligible to vote, only 15% actually voted Conservative.

Yes, 44% looks impressive when it appears on the BBC graphs, next to Labour's woeful performance of 24%. But fewer than 1 in 6 actually voted Conservative last Thursday. I think there is good cause to be cautious about Cameron's ability to build a broad alliance.

[Will Stobart]

I was going to say that one of Cameron's virtues was to unite the party, but looking at the above, I'm not too sure anymore...

In the end it boils down to this: We, the party have elected Cameron, and now we have to stick with him until he's done leading our party. Whatever disagreements we have or have had with Cameron, if the majority support him then whatever a loud minority say should be disregarded.

There are plenty of potential conservative (small c) sucessors waiting in the wings, ready to take over when he falls or leaves. For now we should see this as an opportunity to wean the public off Labour. You can criticise Cameron, but in the end he has so far been sucessful and whatever the criticism of his lack of conservative values (over grammar schools etc., yes, that annoys me too), at least we don't have to put up with a Gordon Brown right now.

[Not Boris]

UKIP's vote split and went to the Conservatives, BNP and English Democrats. Batten was a useless candidate with no campaign, largely due to UKIP's negligible finances. Contrary to Mr Dunn's assertion, the BNP did much better than in previous London elections. That should be a cause for concern rather than smug grandstanding.

[Christina Speight]

David Sergeant@2102 You don't get much right do you? Any apologies for calling me a Labour troll? No, I didn't think so!

I left UKIP when the party was hijacked by those committed to a policy of so splitting the anti-EU movement that it could never succeed: -that and the theft of property , misappropriation of other people's funds and ballot rigging!

People ARE interested but with a combination of BBC and newspaper indifference AND UKIP (see above) the subject of the EU has got in a ghetto. ALL polls - even those done by the EU itself - show the British (along with the Swedes ) as being anti-EU and 85% of the population want the referendum we are being denied.

What on earth do you mean by " on tax and Europe. In both cases the Cameron way scored the points" . Who did it score WITH ??? What are the figures?

I would to like to hear Cameron spell it out (and this is extempore!) saying something like "We all have seen the complete incompetence of this government but it goes deeper than that. They are stealing our birthright - our liberties are attacked with ID cards, with 42 day detention, with a vast array of fixed penalties, and our people are being reduced to being dependent on the state, We must GET THE STATE OFF THE PEOPLE's BACKS and SET THE PEOPLE FREE. We believe in low taxation and now that our whole tax system is in chaos we no longer promise slavishly to follow Labour's disastrous example. We will GET THE STATE OFF OUR BACK. We will keep our word too and honour the promise that was given to the people by all parties - WE WILL HAVE A REFERENDUM ON THE EU CONSTITUTION and if rejected we will exercise our rights as a sovereign country and abrogate the treaty preliminary to rebuilding a new relationship with our friends in Europe. WILL WILL GET THE EU OFF OUR BACK TOO. Come with us and SET THE PEOPLE FREE.
---------
Jon @2103. Yes the percentages look good but without the actual figures now and then they are completely meaningless. The Tory percentage COULD HAVE risen to 44% with fewer votes (I don't say it did, just that percentages are the refuge of spin doctors!)
-----------
Will Stobart - Yes of course it is near impossible that we should now be spared the dreadful prospect of Cameron. But it's not too late to tell him loud and clear that he's got to wake his act up, get some backbone or he'll lose. I have set out what I want him to do and if he does nobody would be more pleased than me. But I'll not vote for him as he is though I voted Tory in London last week - not ;least because all the local 3 councils went against CCHQ's instructions and CUT Council taxes. In one case they've done it twice.

[StevenAdams]

Christina, Mark et al,

you miss the point spectacularly. Every time. Cameron is clever boy, and he's surrounded by clever people both elected and otherwise. None of them are deaf and so I can assure you they've heard the yelling for policy announcements on the withdrawal from Europe tomorrow and the abolition of all taxes the next day. Now, WHY do you think he's stating relatively quiet? Because he enjoys a challenge??

We will be going to the polls in 12-24 months time... in your experience as Agent Extraordinaire would our best approach to be to open the policy suitcase - just as DCs convincing the country that we are a party that has looked at itself, listened and changed - and show the country the 1987 manifesto? You see, I think that would be absurd.

[StevenAdams]

Mark Hudson:

I wonder if you're aware of the irony of you telling somebody off for making vituperative comments before suggesting they are illiterate. Probably not.

[Andy]

Christina,

Let me start by saying I am not going to be discourteous towards you, although I cannot say that I have much time for your analysis of the party's present position!

I stood as a candidate in the recent local elections in a town in the Midlands. My experiences are as follows:
1) There is a great deal of warmth towards our party on the doorstep, and many more people than before are genuinely enthusiastic about voting Conservative.
2) I encountered a significant number of people who had decided to vote Conservative for the first time, having previously always voted Labour.
3) David Cameron as an individual is widely liked on the doorstep by people from very different backgrounds.
4) The Cameron message and the themes he has started to develop resonate with people from very different backgrounds.
5) The party is getting its vote out in its traditional areas, and winning support in traditionally Labour areas.

I accept the point that more policy work will need to be done before a General Election, but I am confident that it will be done. Your argument would seem to indicate that it is somehow unacceptable to have any kind of political positioning strategy and that the necessary compromises we will have to make to win wide support are somehow an outrageous breach of our principles. Those compromises are, by any rational judgment, relatively minor ones that any reasonable conservative-minded person ought to be able to subscribe to without the horrendous throwing of toys out of the pram that a minority of people seem to think is justified.

Christina, I ask you only one question, and I am genuinely open to being persuaded by your answer. Are you suggesting that we move back to the sorts of traditional themes we explored in 2001 and 2005, or do you have something different in mind, and in what way will your proposed strategy be more successful than the Cameron approach, which appears to be working remarkably effectively?

[Jaz]

Christina, I remember you a supporter of David Davis during the leadership campaign.

However, I do think you are very old school. The party has done very, very well.

Point 1) David Cameron is a brilliant communicator - Why, see pre "non-election" conference and see the bounce he got - His approval and favourability ratings are very high.

Point 2) There have been no abandonment of Conservative ideals. - Cutting business rates (stated again and again by Osbourne is various manners), simplifying agenda, police, cutting inheritance tax. The fact that people are willing to WANT an inheritance tax cut, which by in large doesn't effect all that many people is amazing.

Point 3) Making the conservatives go into more areas. "handling the NHS" and "social security" and "family values". These have been no go areas for a LONG LONG time, this is back on our territory.

Points 4) There are certain things in British politics that you can and cannot do. You CANNOT propose increases/decreases in income tax without valid reasons. The public like the NHS idea, changing it to "insurance" could never be introduced. You cannot be pro-europe, or anti-europe to such an extent that it might "harm the economy".

I seriously suggest that the older generation give up on the Thatcher manifesto - What we achieved in the 80's was a great success, time for a new agenda for today.

This does not diminish Thatcher, or her ideas, just a progression on them.

[Chad Noble]

"The public like the NHS idea, changing it to "insurance" could never be introduced."

If you harmonise free movement of people without also harmonising welfare you will create imbalanced movement as people flock to the zone with the cheapest welfare options.

I wonder how the public would respond if politicians were honest with them and explained that our NHS system itself (versus the more common social insurance model across the EU )is likely to be a primary cause of Britain's immigration problems.

[Alex Swanson]

Let's examine the facts.

The Conservative Party scored 40% in 2006, 40% in 2007, and 43/44% (Times/BBC) this year. In all cases this was above the national poll rating.

There is no reason to believe that Cameron was responsible for the last two year's results, especially since in the first instance he had only been leader for a few months and last autumn was widely expected to lose any general election. Nor is there any reason to believe that the 3 or 4 point gain since last year is anything other than a protest vote (and a small one at that) against tax and price rises, or incompetent govt in general. It's certainly not as if Cameron has any solid alternative to offer.

Personal anecdotes about people liking Cameron are all very well, but the figures don't lie. Cameron is the beneficiary, not the cause, of this rise in support.

[Opinicus]

There are two problems for conservatives (small c) in the current situation
1) Has the Conservative Party done enough, is it going to do enough, to secure victory in 2010?
2) Will a Conservative government in 2010 do enough to save this country from economic and political extinction by Beijing and Brussels respectively.
Victory for a conservative, unlike a Conservative, consists in achieving both aims
In the entire country, only 350+ conservatives benefit from a win in 2010 as MPs, of whom only 150 get Jaguars too, only 500 wonks benefit directly and another 100 in think tanks. After an initial night of celebration for which the rest of us have to pay with our own money that leaves the rest of us unhelped by merely accomplishing task 1.

That is why the rest of us are concerned with what a Conservative government is prepared to do unlike the CCHQ mob above who are only concerned with getting a Conservative government.

Even so this completely ignores the issue of whether CCHQ will maintain its poll lead into 2010 by continuing its only policy - Omerta, once the media start to ask questions of the prospective next government.

[Bexie]

One has to bear in mind that dismantling the edifice of state supported jobs that Broon and all have created in the past 11 years is not going to be easy, and I suspect we do not want to have the sharp shock that Margret Thatcher initiated when the nationalised industrys were dismantled.

Osbourne made his position quite clear, tax cuts when we can afford them. The only way to do this without considerable pain is to let the civil service shrink through natrual attrition and consolodate/ remove departments as you go along.

One thing that we could do though on day one is to cease the endless advertising, the surveys and all the paid jobs in "Charities" that are little more than spokesmen for Zanulab. We whould be ready with a bonfire of the Quangos.

One area that I would let suffer with glee is the Grauniad and "Indy" who would have a sharp reduction in revenue without government job ads and propoganda full pagers...

[Christina Speight]

Reading the above I am concerned that I am being criticised largely for things I didn't say!!!

Firstly Steven Adams @0029 - It is a travesty to say that I am “yelling” for “tax cuts the next day” but I AM calling for a commitment to lower taxes in principle! That’s NOT “yelling” - it’s reminding the inexperienced here what we’re in politics FOR. To tie the party to a failed and hugely unpopular labour tax regime may have been necessary once, but now that it’s unravelling it’s daft. I might add that I take great exception to the use of the word “yelling”.

My gripe is that nobody has the slightest idea of what motivates Cameron because he never spells it out. In my last (@2349) I set out the kind of thing I want to hear from him - matters of principle, not detailed policy - a dream, a target, a vision. He’s a man, it would seem, of no vision merely of a ‘nuts and bolt’ approach. Where’s the passion to make a better Britain? You, Steven Adams, say he’s clever. Well maybe, but I have severe doubts about those around him. I am worried that you, Steven Adams , can say “I can assure you”. HOW? Are you one of those ‘around him’ .?

As for Europe - Well he promised to take Tory MEPs out of the EPP-ED group when he was elected and that helped win him the election. The promise was “not in days; not in months but in weeks”. That promise has been broken and with a broken promise goes trust. (See Gordon Brown on the referendum) . Now Cameron says on the failure to get a referendum “We will not let it rest there?. Then what is he going to do about it. He’s broken his promise once - he cannot therefore be trusted.
---------------
Andy @ 1.02 - I want some proof that the party is actually getting significantly more votes than previously - not the ‘con’ trick with percentages please! I fear - without evidence because nobody publishes the figures! - that the party merely marshalled the core vote while Labour voters made their protest by abstaining. That does wonders for percentages! You talk about “The Cameron message and the themes he has started to develop” . Will you please tell me what they are because they appear to have escaped notice anywhere except on your doorsteps. It’s not detailed policies I’m rabitting on about it is the missing THEME.

And then you pose a question which is of the legal variety of “when did you stop beating your wife” type! . There is not much difference in the actual policies between those put forward by the excellent Michael Howard and those today. But previous elections were in different circumstances with a different (and apparently successful) prime minister. You suggest that the ‘Cameron approach’ is successful. I challenge that; with an opponent like Brown all Cameron has to do is smile nicely and be polite to voters. Brown has destroyed his own credibility and the voters turn to Cameron (if they HAVE?) faute-de-mieux.
-----------
Jaz @1.29 - The party ‘Has done very well” ??? The Labour party has certainlly done very badly - NOW. The Labour abstainers will come back
-----------
Alex Swanson and Jonathan @ 0828 and 0901 - You’re both right. All this euphoria because Labour voters abstain is pure hubris.
-----------
Bexie @ 0913 - Don’t start me on places to cut expenditure! I’d start with £15bn (or what’s left of it) on ID cards and then ask civil servants to do what they used to do - prepare and executye policies without the obscene expenditure on consultants - those modern parasites.

[Christina Speight]

Would Steve Adams like to answer the sdimple question I posed ?---
"You, Steven Adams, say [Cameron]’s clever. Well maybe, but I have severe doubts about those around him. I am worried that you, Steven Adams , can say “I can assure you”. HOW? Are you one of those ‘around him’ .?

[timc]

cameron vista??? How about cameron mac?

[StevenAdams]

Ha ha - no, I'm not 'one of those around him'. I think that you are reading between lines that don't don't exist.

DC is major party's leader with strong resources and backing; I think that you could safely say that he has a good support network around him (some of which we know: Hague and Crosby for instance).

'Yelling for' and 'tax cuts the next day' are quite clearly off-handed comments designed to illustrate the verve and vigour of these calls for a Thatcherite agenda.

And as for your call to save billions by scrapping the ID card initiative - this is party policy!!! DC, GO et al have already committed to that, so you can hardly accuse them of avoiding the topic!

[Matt Wright]

I agree with Andy at 1.02. I found in my election and the ones I ran for others, that Cameron was liked by many people. Also since Cameron has made changes the party comes across as less shrill, less obsessed with money, more approachable, more considerate of wider social issues, more caring etc etc. I have no doubt this has helped us massively (sometimes called moving to the centre). It is fascinating that Christina's tone is almost the opposite of this and her solutions are a direct repetition of something she was involved in when fighting Atlee. Possibly this is just a bit out of date even if some of the aspects remain true. Constantly repeating the old phrase "set the people free" may mean something to many of us who are Conservatives but I would say it doesn't mean that much to many people today when expressed in that way. Christina also keeps using capitals in her e-mails like somebody screaming. Screaming the same old messages at voters because you apparently think they are too thick to understand, doesn't work.

[christina Speight]

Steve Adams - do PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth. all i said was that scrapping the ID c ard scheme would release billions for tax cuts.

I asked "How can you assure me of anything" unless you are one of those around Cameron like a CCHQ . So your assurances are worthless.

Matt Wright - I use caps because I haven't worked out how to use italics. Simple - and piffling - innit? Also they're appropriate for slogans

And Matt if you haven't heard the cry from the ordinary families to "stop persecuting us with hand-out fines and get off our backs and give us some of our money back" then you aren't listening. (Perhaps I need some 'caps'?) So Set the People Free has a massive resonance and is compatible with the detailed policies. ASll you propose is to bore the electorate to death in the hope they won't dislike you. There's a death-wish if ever I heard one.

Cameron did not (italics!) win anything on May 1. He just sat tight and watched Labour implode. You'll need more than that in a General Election. But with Cameron and his wet band of Cameroons will never inspire anybody.

[StevenAdams]

Oh good Lord.

[christina Speight]

Steven A
It must be galling I agree to have been so comprehensive rumbled. Bad luck - try your distortions on the Labour party next time.

[Andy]

Christina, you say "There is not much difference in the actual policies between those put forward by the excellent Michael Howard and those today."

What on earth, then, is your objection?! I've still no idea what it is that you propose to do!

[friedmanite]

Christina,

How to use italics

[StevenAdams]

Ah... to be comprehensively rumbled.

I wonder if Cameron's had nothing to do with YouGov's 26% Tory lead either.