« Tories must oppose using taxpayers' money to bailout newspapers | Main | David Cameron urges freeze of BBC licence fee at monthly press conference »


I read the DT article on the way in this morning. It rather confirms all my views and/or prejudices. The Conservative Party will have the most seats and get the most votes in the GE. However, I seriously doubt it'll be enough for a majority. A clear domination of London, rural and suburban England, but no major inroads in cities, Scotland or Wales. God knows what the rather odd pact in NI will mean.

There is no doubt that the Labour Party is finished, as was Major in the 2 years prior to 1997. However, there is absolutely not the desire for the Conservatives as there was for New Labour in the comparable period. Very far from it. The Party comes across as vague, unsure, shallow and without any valuable solutions to our present dire economic circumstances.

My other half - who is an ex-parliamentary candidate for your Party - has just rejoined. Our village branch is comparatively strong, but it is still almost exclusively comprised of geriatrics who are not being replaced at any great speed. One cold winter and some poor sod is going to have a hell of a lot of leaflets to deliver.

I hope the Party turns iself into something more credible, but at the moment, a hung parliament - God Forbid - seems the most likely outcome.

Yes there is a mountain to climb. The party's organisation has suffered under the anonymous Caroline Spellman's period as Chairman, with the Regional parts being left to their own devices and not given the focused attention that the Party's Chairman should provide. Merlin is another example of the ineptitude that the party's volunteers have to put up with.

I thought Philip Johnston's article was very flawed for the following reasons:

1) Polling evidence in the marginal seats has consistently shown the Conservatives much further ahead of Labour than they are in the national opinion polls.

2)He compares today's polls with polls from the mid 1990s which wildly overstated Labour's support. The polling methodologies of all the pollsters have undergone such sigificant revision since then that it is almost meaningless to compare today's polls with those of 15 years ago. The higher level of support that Labour registered was enough to give them a landslide in 1997 and we don't need a landslide, just a decent working majority.

3) For some bizarre reason he assumes that large scale anti-Tory tactical voting will be a feature of the next election, as it was in 1997, 2001 and to a lesser extent in 2005. All the evidence is that there will be significant tactical unwind because other parties' voters, especially the LDs no longer so proactively dislike or fear the Conservatives.

For all those reasons if the Tories got 41% in an election they would almost certainly get a working majority. I agree though that given the circumstances we ought to be further ahead than we are and there is no cause for complacency.

I do not think we will have a Hung Parliament, I most certainly hope we do not have that worst of all outcomes, but that the Conservatives will win an outright majority but a small one, say between 30 to 40 and not the three figure landslide that some polls and people project at present. Such a good result may occur at the following General Election in 2014-15 if Cameron is seen to have done well in office and if as usually happens after a defeat Labour turn on themselves with Left-Right infighting.

Bear in mind that people tend to firm up when they vote at a real General Election compared to what they may say to Opinion Pollsters. I would also think that Labour, knowing they are likely to lose, will be fighting a damage limitation campaign, forsaking trying to capture Tory and Lib Marginals to try to hold as many of their own second tier marginal seats as they can. If successful this would reduce the Conservative Majority.

Looking at past Governments I would say that at the very least 30 is essential for a working majority to allow for deaths of MPs and consequent by-elections losses. Major tried to govern with 21 from 1992 to 1997 but soon ran into difficulties as he lost nearly every by-election that occurred in that time and was in effect a minority government at the end.

"Our village branch is comparatively strong, but it is still almost exclusively comprised of geriatrics who are not being replaced at any great speed. One cold winter and some poor sod is going to have a hell of a lot of leaflets to deliver."

We are very fortunate in London and perhaps don't appreciate the problems that country Associations have in attracting younger members. A practical solution for your leaflet delivery might be to see if the nearest Uni has an active branch of CF'ers who might enjoy a day trip to the country and a nice pub lunch?

Of course the general election can be won, but there are far too many Conservatives who think that it's a done deal.

Brown bounced back once to spectacular effect and there is no reason why at some point over the next 12 months he cannot do the same again, particularly if the economy starts to pick up again.

A hung parliament with Conservatives as the largest single party seems an ever more likely outcome. So the question that needs to be addressed is "What then?"
Should Cameron form a tory only minority govt and challenge other parties to vote legislation down, triggering an early 2nd election? (my preferred option)
Or Do a deal with the various celtic fringe parties, probably putting devolution on the agenda?
Or Do a deal with LibDems thus putting proportional representation on the agenda?
All of the scenarios will depend on the final numbers breakdown and at this stage can only be thought about (as I hope they are).
What would be fatal would be to reach the day after the election and then have to say "What do we do now?" Equally fatal would be to make any public pre GE commitment as to how a hung parliament would be handled.
About the only thing one can be sure of is that it would be a short parliament with another election within months.

Mark Hudson:
"The Party comes across as vague, unsure, shallow and without any valuable solutions to our present dire economic circumstances.
... at the moment, a hung parliament - God Forbid - seems the most likely outcome."

I think your description of the Cons.Party's image is spot on, even somewhat flattering, and it has brought this upon itself in the attempt to emulate Blair's cynical though astute re-branding of Labour into an all things to all men Party. We shall see. But given the exiguous real differences between Cons & Lab, and the huge damage wrought in recent decades by government, perhaps the hung parliament you envisage might be the least worst option in that it would be less liable to do positive harm. Rather like an old car - basically sound, robust, reliable, capable of astonishing things from time to time - Blighty suffers from a plague of amateur mechanics fresh from the Job Centre who have lied about their competence and whose successive bodge-jobs exacerbate relatively minor problems so that these become much more severe and expensive to rectify. Left alone, when the self-styled mechanics have been fired, the old banger could well recover...

The Tories still have much to do. Recent by-elections show a LibDem revival which is now being reflected in recent polls. (They are very adept at by-elections, so it may be the latter which is more important.)

If the Tories do not produce more thinking which appeals, then I can see the Libdems getting Labour constituencies, and we finish with a small overall majority or even a hung parliament.

The Spring Conference could be a good time to pull out some eye-catching policies!

"The task Mr Cameron and his team face in the remaining 14 months is to give them a few good reasons why they should."

This comment echoes my own thoughts for many months now; Labour will lose the next election, partly because of Labour incompetence and financial incontinence but mainly because of Gordon Brown.

David Cameron has done a marvellous job in many areas but, in my view, he has not yet done quite enough to deserve to win a clearcut election.

The reasons for saying this have been well rehearsed: (i) he has not got all the best people currently available in the best positions in his team, (ii) he has produced a few telling comments on the present crisis but not produced a compelling solution and (iii) there are important lacunae in his published policies - notably the EU.

No doubt, in the run-up to an election, all these points will be addressed but I hope he doesn't leave it too late.

Whilst some people in the MSM have yet to realise the valuable information available on blogs I expected better from you! Mike Smithson at political betting has continually said that the exercises conducted by people like Philip Johnston are just a waste of time. I really thought that ConHome would have known better than to promote this sort of rubbish designed to fill a few column inches on a slow news day.

Check out political betting today and you will find yet another article saying that you cannot compare polls of the 90s to today's polls. The only exemption is ICM as their methodology has remained the same.

Sally "A practical solution for your leaflet delivery might be to see if the nearest Uni has an active branch of CF'ers who might enjoy a day trip to the country and a nice pub lunch?"

The CF near us seem to be too distracted with all their annual elections.

CF seem to have disappeared from Con Home as well.

My prediction stands that there will be a 60-70 Tory majority. These polls have a much accurate methodology than those of previous years. I really should put some money on that, as a tiny compensation for a Tory government.

Incidentally, I was very amused to read that 11% of Tory voters think that Brown is doing "fairly well" in the Sunday Times poll. Who are these people?

HF - I had forgotten the annual distraction of the CF Elections, but I am sure once those are over, they will be back in campaign mode! As for disappearing off here - they have probably been lured away by the Estimable Mr Tory Bear!

After the battering the voter has received during the last decade, I doubt any politician will ever again command enthusiastic, overwhelming support. A goodly proportion of the electorate is ashamed for having been suckered thrice over and is not going to commit itself one way or the other. I'm afraid the "They're All the Same" party has rather more adherents than Westminster cares to admit.

Johnston's analysis is flawed on several fronts. Basically, the 'striving/tax paying class' has had enough of them, based on my conversations.

Tactical voting will count against Labour next time. In 1997, 2001 and even 2005 there were still voters who hated us enough to be minded to vote tactically. My anecodotal evidence at door step level is that Labour is now suffering the same.

Johnston's theory does not take into account 'the Ashcroft effect', many of our PPCs in marginal constituencies have now been well resourced and well entrenched in their seats since 2005.

In the South East I expect us to virtually clean sweep, including winning seats like Shepherds Bush, Ealing North, Dover and Thanet South. Even John Denham will struggle to hang on in Southampton Itchen- the public mood has gone against Labour big time in this area of the UK. I also think that only Vince Cable [Twickenham] and David Laws [Yeovil] will hang on with any degree of comfort for the Lib Dems.

Labour is going to be reduced to their Northern /Welsh and Scottish rump again.

Interesting article. He mentions super Thursday - Euro elections as well as county on that day but although the Tories are set to do well at home unless they can come out with a firm statement about a referendum on the Lisbon treaty it will be a different story in the EU elections. "We will not leave it there" is not good enough

Despite all the hard work over the past few years, outdated constituency sizing will, frustratingly, still work against us.

In addition, UKIP will no doubt shave away 20-30 prospective wins as they did in 2005. That threat can easily be neutralised but it won't be (just yet).

I am prepared to bet 50 pence that we will see a re-run of 1974 with the Tories winning a working majority second time around. Any takers?

The polls are volatile; and complacency will not help us. Of course I think we will win a decent majority. If only because Gordon Brown does not and will never understand the lives of normal human beings.
But to get a mandate for our vital social agenda - now, to me - that is the challenge.

I wouldn't say that 1974 is the best parallel to point to! We had a working majority in 1970 and lost in 1974! Unless you are suggesting we play the role of Labour in that scenario...

Unless things change markedly over the next 14 months I think we will win a decent majority at the next election. Mike Smithson gives us several clues. We are ahead in most of the marginals, the Lib Dems favour us over Labour and may well vote tactically to get a Labour MP out,the BNP will take more votes from Labour than us and most importantly Labour's vote is considerably 'softer' than the other main parties.Many people who tell pollsters that that they are Labour voters may well not vote at all unless Labour are able to turn things around, which looks increasingly unlikely.

Chris - we did lose in 1974 but this was under the leadership of the worst Tory PM of the 20th Century. I am indeed therefore suggesting that we play the role of Labour.

The whole period is an interesting one when it comes to fantasy politics. Wilson had been favourite to win in 1970 until Enoch Powell gave his solid support to Heath. The whole course of politics over the past 40 years would have been very different if Heath had lost that year.

Whilst I read the Philip Johnston article with interest, it is seriously flawed in a number of ways. As some have already commented, at this stage an awful lot of people will not declare themselves anyway.

But it is more than that, the public have more immediate problems on their mind concerning the current economic situation and 'know' that the Election is over a year away, Brown won't go early.

After the experience of Blair in 1997, I don't think the public will ever give a Party such a majority again but Cameron will have a majority and a reasonable one. However it will be a tough first term with no guarantee of a second because the policies will have to be rugged to dig us out of this hole.

We have three big problems, which I rarely see mentioned.

1. It is possible to Lib Dems could poll less than 15% nationally and still win 50-odd seats. The majority of 'their' seats used to be 'our' seats. Cameron will find it difficult to form a government without making good advances in Lib Dem-held seats. The problem is, many of these Lib Dem MPs are liked and respected. They are seen as hard-working, in touch and willing to go the extra mile to help their constituents. Above all, they are not Labour!

2. We actually have fewer MPs than Michael Foot had in 1983! We start from a very low base!

3. I can think of at least a dozen seats in London which we won in 1992 by small majorities. Our organisation has completely collapsed in many of those seats. I can think of two, where we have just three councillors!

I wonder what CCHQ's strategy is for these problems?

Personally, my money is on a 90 majority.

Come on! Don't be such pessimists! WE ARE GOING TO WIN! We're not going to consider the possibility of defeat!

I have always felt a hung Parliament is the most likely result of the next election. No bad thing as it will proably herald a realignment of politics that will see the Lib/Dems and Labour come together in an alliance that will see the right kept out of power for a generation or more.


Which constituencies in London ? I think you are wrong- we are thriving down here and well on course to win seats with 5,000- 8,000 Labour majorities, Hammersmith and Tooting being just two.

The number of seats needed for an overall majority is 116 after boundary changes, not 134.

A majority of 90 seats is not really feasible. It would require 160 gains which I think is not possible over a single election.

I think the Tories will probably take most of the seats they need from Labour for an overall majority. The problem, as others have said, is winning back those LD seats which the used to be pretty safe Conservative seats, such as Westmorland, Cornwall SE, Newton Abbot, Eastleigh, Norfolk N, etc.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment of Heath and fantasy politics of the 70s. Another favoured fantasy debate of mine is if Labour won the 1992 election - they get hamstrung with ERM and loony left politics propels them back into the wilderness until god knows when...

There are a lot of conflicting forces in play and its difficult to really know how things will pan out.

AGAINST: New Labour was really all about getting and acquiring power, and the Labour party have done a great deal of work in changing the underlying default behaviour of the British public via building its public sector client state, immigration, etc. There will be an awful lot of public sector workers who have been very well looked after in the last few years who know a Tory government may well cut their jobs. Come polling day these Turkeys wont vote for Christmas.

FOR: The BNP will probably take more votes away from Labour than the Tories, particularly from white working class 'tribal' Labour voters. Many white working class Labour voters may also sit on their hands.

AGAINST: UKIP will take some from the Tories but probably not as many as in the past.

AGAINST: The governing party usually has a small upswing approaching election day as people instinctively 'keep a hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse'.

FOR: Gordon Brown has never fought a proper election in his life and is clearly a coward who avoids competition. That will count for the Tories during a campaign.

AGAINST: Postal voting and attendant fraud will have a malign affect in some areas, particularly ones with a high Muslim demographic.

FOR: The boundary commission changes should in theory swing as many as 34 seats to the Tories using the voting percentages seen in the last election.

AGAINST: There is still a in-built bias against the Tories in the way constituencies are drawn.

All in all we just dont know, so the Tories must work hard for every single vote out there until polling day.

Chris - yes, we should have lost in '92 and therefore avoided Maastricht if not the ERM as we signed up to that straightjacket when Major was chancellor. If we'd lost in 1970, neither issue would have reared its head at all. . .

We will win a big majority at the next election. The danger is losing it at the following one, after starting a painful reduction in the debt mountain. Personal and National.

Paul Oakley, I have (through gritted teeth) to admit you are right about this!!

Justin (after being rude to you on EPP).

You are right about the state of the party in some areas. Key to change is obviously the grass roots but there is also the key role that regional paid officers play in nurturing these roots. However the disengaged party chairman that we had in Caroline Spellman, did not pressure these regional people into upping their game.

Just as she presided over the terrible Merlin roll out installing a system that should have stopped with the very first installation.

A disengaged Chairman has left many problems on Mr Pickles desk.

London Tory - whilst you're right and I KNOW we are going to win Hammersmith with a superb candidate and much hard work! - I don't knock what Justin is saying and especially his point about the Lib Dems.
As Justin points out, most of their seats used to be hours and it is going to be a tough call to displace well-known characters such as Vince Cable in Twickenham. That is not to say it can't be done, but it is going to take a lot of thought and a big push!

Oh dear, I had hoped that Conhome would not be so foolish as to focus on Philip Johnston’s superficial and totally flawed piece. All it indicates is that Philip Johnston knows nothing about polling, or about boundary changes and precious little about what is actually being indicated by the polls currently.

There is an excellent piece on Politicalbetting.com this morning which coincidentally debunks Johnston’s core argument. Have a read:

The PB Guide to Polling Methodologies

Now let's put some perspective on the rest of this piece.

Johnston’s secondary argument about boundary bias relating to Scotland and Wales is an utter irrelevance. If he had any knowledge of such things he would know that Scotland’s boundaries were reformed for the 2005 election when the number of constituencies were reduced from 72 to 60.

Reform of Welsh constituencies would likely reduce the number from 40 to 32 if done strictly on electorate size. His concerns would produce a net difference of 8 seats and if one wants to be pedantic one could perhaps squeeze another 3 in Scotland (although in practice such would seem excessive#. So his big second argument is that such moves would reduce Labour by 11 seats. How do we know which seats would be altered and how it would affect the political make-up of the electorate within those constituencies? The answer is we don’t. There is no guarantee that changing boundaries and constituency sizes will provide a benefit for any party.

Furthermore, it should also be noted in the latest tranche of boundary changes the Conservatives are the net beneficiaries by around 10 seats. So whatever inherent bias there is has been addressed to some extent over these two elections. Consequently, any arguments about the bias of the boundary system are almost totally spurious.

In addition successes for other parties such as the SNP, Libdems, or PC also to some extent benefits the Conservatives as long as they reach the magic 326 figure. Presently the indication is that Labour will lose a part of their Scottish powerbase to the SNP.

However, let us move on and consider what Johnston is arguing. He argues that the results in the 100 constituencies in Scotland and Wales will likely have a material effect on who governs this country after the next election. Well perhaps but only in the same sense as the Libdems have an influence over the Government of this country. Whilst there are 100 seats in these two regions there are 532 in England. It is here where the election will be decided. Mopping up the Labour marginal seats in the Home Counties more than compensates for any deficit in Scotland and Wales (not that there shouldn’t be equal effort in those regions to win seats).

Whilst having good representation in all regions is important in political terms, it is not necessarily so in strict electoral numbers terms. No party needs national coverage in that sense to form a Government.

The critical battlegrounds for the Conservatives against Labour are London, SE, Birmingham and the wider Midlands.

The critical battlegrounds against the Libdems are in the SE and SW. If the Conservatives can win those battles then they are likely to form the next Government.

Of course they should be making progress elsewhere and polls suggest they are but critically the polls mostly suggest that in these critical areas the Conservatives have built up a sufficient lead to win those battles.

Now the recent polls are just a snapshot and as is the nature of polls numerous caveats apply (the pre 1997 polls prove that). There is a long way to go and there is no time for complacency, however to adress another of Philip Johnston's illusions that the Conservative progress has 'stalled'. What he doesn't tell you is that it had 'stalled' at the same time last year and the Conservatives are 5 points further ahead on average in the polls at this point this year than they were last year.

The polling story of last year was not the damp squib of the Brown bounce II but the Conservative election bounce of 10-15 points which started in April and dropped off in September at conference time (when the Conservative conference was disrupted by the economic crisis). The net result has been the Conservatives are 5 points better off now.

Now given these factors, to spread the sort of nonsense that Johnston has produced is pure scaremongering that panders to the Conservative’s opposing parties. It should not be given credibility.

The reality would seem, as it stands, that the Conservative party are on course to win the next General election and another year without complaceny, hard work and a positive approach and they should win the next General election well.


without complaceny, hard work and a positive approach

without complacency, with hard work and with a positive approach.

Sally, I know you and I rarely see eye to eye, but you do make some good points here. Sadly, many associations even in safe seats are dying: how many can truthfully say they have 1,000 members or more? Very few. In Kent, for example, Sevenoaks maybe, but the rest are way under.

The simple fact is that the grassroots of all parties are dead in many areas, safe or marginal. The turnout and direction of it will be based largely on what people feel nationally. Hence I maintain my position: a Conservative win, but the profound lack of enthusiasm could make it just or even well short of a working majority.


I personally think that Vince Cable will be the only Lib Dem left standing after the election in London. The demographics of his constituency, plus his media profile means that he will always attract the Greg Dyke Labour vote there.

I know from campaigning there in the past that Simon Hughes is well entrenched in Southwark, but he will face a strong Labour challenge next time.

Agree about Shaun Bailey in Hammersmith, he will be well supported by Malcolm Rifkind and Greg Hands among others, and will 'Slaughter' the Labour candidate :)

So the Conservatives win. And do what precisely? Deport alien criminals? Stop immigration? Stop paying billions to the EU?
I thought not. As the nation is governed by Brussels why not save the taxpayers money and close Parliament altogether?

My feeling is that we will win many Liberal seats back next time around. I go out door knocking twice a week and those Liberals who switched in 1997 from Cons to Liberals are coming back, if only for the purpose of getting rid of the Clucking Fist. I think the Libs will do well in the North where people are fed up with Labour too, but can't quite bring themselves to vote Conservative. The further gains in the south along with some gains in the north for us should/might/will give us a good majority. Who knows what 'events dear boy' will occur betwixt now and the election?

Good grief, the country can't possibly vote for Brown and the Labour party after this debacle can they?

I think Zac Goldsmith who spoke in defence of the people who caused criminal damage to Kingsnorth power station is unlikely to win Richmond Park, where the sitting LibDem woman is another global warming fanatic.
He is of course, Mr.Cameron`s energy policy man and wants more wind farms and solar panels.

There is always a risk of complacency and with a rising assumption that the Conservatives will win, comes the attendant risks.

We sometimes seem perhaps too willing to accept Brown's timetable for a General Election in May or June next year. Brown still hopes that something will turn up. There is always the risk that it will.

We may not be able to change the election date, but we do not need to accept it. If things go badly for Labour on 4th June then we should use this as the definitive proof of Labour's rejection and demand Brown hastens the day.

So my view is that we need to stop thinking of this as a marathon and now think of the election as a middle distance race. In other words, step up the pace between 5th June 2009 and 3rd June 2010.

The electorate is sick and tired of Brown, but they must also be yearning to vote them out whenever the time comes. We must be seen to be doing everything possible to speed along Brown's last trip to the Queen.

I am glad that others have pointed to Political Betting. If all the political journalists read that site every day, the quality of journalism would increase significantly.

We will win. However, under the circumstances we need to win handsomely. Eric Pickles expects that everyman do his duty.

I agree entirely with Mark Hudson's comments.

I am a passionate Conservative, and living as I do in Newcastle City Centre (number of Councillors = Nil) I have seen the damage that entrenched statist socialim and "bureaurcrati cruelty" do to peoples lives.

I joined the local Conservative Federation well over 10 years ago, fizzing with ideas and my enthusiasm was gradually worn down by the dead hand of the gerontocracy who run such Federations.

It has been clear to me for many years (as a Marketing Professional) that it is not only the message, but the messenger which is so important in areas that are traditional Labour territory.

We have wasted a good decade or more in Newcastle with doddering, amateurish communications when a sharp, prpfessional targeted campaign could have delivered a small and growing Conservative opposition on the City Council.

Even more importantly, in the North East at least, the Conservatives are (largely) still absent in the Media and in Public debate about the future of our region.

I do not take it away from the energetic and dedicated campaigns of all of the PPC's in the Northern Region, but in each of the maybe 4 - 6 winnable seats in this region there are huge tracts of barren voting territory for the Conservatives.

This should be a historic opportunity for the Conservatives to prize the 'proud working classes' (my term for the C1, C2 voters won by Thatcher) from Labour who abhor Political Correctness, Public Sector Waste, Instinctive anti-British / anti-Patriotic sentiments held by the Left, alas this would clash with the Cameronite agenda of wooing the modish Guardian/Observer readers (in London & Southern seats in which we are already well ahead).

We need a real 'pattern break' in Labour heartlands as to many people still parrot Labour parodies of 'The Tories' as cold, uncaring plutocrats.


We held seats in central Newcastle in the not so distant 80s- Piers Merchant won there.

Reason ? Mrs Thatcher appealed to the solid working class, and addressed their concerns in a language that was understood.

Self doubt can be very unforgiving. Lets face facts, without taking anything for granted, the electorate know this Government has been dysfunctional in everything it has done. They have ruined our pensions, ruined our savings, ruined our businesses, ruined our jobs, ruined our currency, ruined our industry, ruined our economy and saddled our children and grand children with an absolutely scandelous debt.

Nobody in their right mind would vote for Brown and his Champagne socialists ever again. Brown has dug their grave and they will be buried under their failed promises, lies and sleaze.They will be certainly consigned to the dustbin of history for the next 50 years.

@Mark Hudson. What is the average age of the Lib Dem and Labour party members in your village?

You know, it is very difficult to join little groups of people who know each other very well - remember the Young Conservatives in the 1960s? Nearly put me off politics for life.

If the Tories want to Win they must start playing to their old strengths. Firstly and most important they must love Britain openly, none of the Blair, Brown sell out disguised as political correctness. They must be prepared to go that inch further and embrace the mood of the people. We want our Queen on display, she is our head of state.
we need to define what being a modern subject means and not beat about the boot. Those people who hold British passports have obligations as well as rights. Those who transgress common law treason laws deserve to be torn to shreds by the mob. We should not be shy to tell it like it is. We should put political officers in charge of the BBC's rejuvenation. We have no choice but to declare our enemys and have done with it. We should commit to expulsions. If we need transit camps so be it. Those who should be gone will be gone. There simply is no other way to convince the Nation of its existences.
Failing to address these issue will result in increasing levels of agitation. We will set a trap for those who would have done UN to death for daring to utter truths. I feel sorry for many of the public because a right wing revolution is always so much more of a chore. If one is unwilling to fit in easily to a cultural shift, those who want to fight for their rights will often challenge all comers and such square pegs need some encouragement to conform. Away with the smut and the seedy alcoholic blurry of modern England. We can and indeed we will be a stern stick for Britain a real clean sweep.

As I've said on another thread, keep the BBC, but cut it down to size by putting the accountants in. Freeze the television tax and redistribute parts of it to other broadcasters who are willing to show more of Parliaments proceedings. stop them showing endless biographies of Blair or the thoughts of Prescott. Don't fund programmes that majority taste finds obnoxious. Insist they report all newspaper opinion polls fully and give full and dispassionate coverage to opposition policies and announcements. If they don't like it tell them - TOUGH!

"Yet the country still does not feel ready to switch in sufficient numbers to the Conservatives. The task Mr Cameron and his team face in the remaining 14 months is to give them a few good reasons why they should."

One reason, which seems to be overlooked here, is that the present time anyone who has a mortgage and is in work is feeling better off financially at the moment because of the cuts in interest rates.

I would paraphase Clinton's: "It's the economy stupid" to "It's my personal pocket stupid". Of course, before too long people will begin to realise that the extra pounds in their pockets now will cost them extra taxes later on. David Cameron needs to point that out and in doing so present himself as being realistic and telling it as it is by facing facts.

And I agree with Ross Warren above.

"Conservatives to prize the 'proud working classes' (my term for the C1, C2 voters won by Thatcher"

The better soft of working man. Those who tend to have large family bibles and some real claim to be the true moral class, having contented themselves with simple lives.These live to their means and distrust bankers and those selling insurance.Of course they are often relatively wealthy having more than enough and a surplus from which a tithe is administered. We would do well to examine the frugal instincts that under pin this class. Many are indeed of a christian persuasion, this may explain their willingness to service. This class was often founded by women and men who had been in service. This class truly respects the Aristocratic class above the middle class which is considers to have lower hygiene standards and less moral backbone in far to many cases.
These people are very much the backbone of Volunteer service. They will often work far harder for no monetary reward, than they will for a task tied to cash. Many of these people have great talents and almost all of them can rightly be described as skilled. Their education is improving over the generations, with numerous children breaking out to university and beyond. However the majority are artisans rather than professionals. Perversely they believe themselves to be the salt of the earth, and of course in many cases they are. This is a world of extended but close families of mutual support of aunties and uncles and Family life.

Ross Warren:
"The better soft of working man. Those who tend to have large family bibles ... the true moral class, having contented themselves with simple lives...... tithe is administered...the frugal instincts that under pin this class... of a christian persuasion...often founded by women and men who had been in service. This class truly respects the Aristocratic class above the middle class which is considers to have lower hygiene standards and less moral backbone in far to many cases..."
I had to read this twice to ascertain whether it's satirical in intent, though I'm still not certain. Have you slipped through a time-warp from the late 19thC? Are you a regular re-reader of Warwick Deeping? Have you at any time been on the script team for Monty Python? I've always kept political parties at arm's length and never dreamed of joining e.g. the Conservative Party (let alone the YCs, good grief...) but it certainly seems to be, shall we say, a broad church.

"I had to read this twice to ascertain whether it's satirical in intent, though I'm still not certain."

Malcolm Stevas, I am glad you posted your reaction before I posted my similar thoughts as I wondered if perhaps I was missing something!

I started to think irreverently perhaps of Jilly Cooper's famous tongue-in-cheek treatise on "Class" of some years ago. The family of which I think Ross Warren speaks were known as the "Jen Teales"!! The relatively unwashed aristocrats of whom Ross speaks were represented by character "Harry Stow Crat" and his wife Caroline and yes, I believe Ms Cooper did refer to their slightly grubby habits!

Personally I think Richmond will be mad if they don`t elect Zac Goldsmith. He is one of the best things about the Conservative Party and unlike many in the party is obviously a man of principle.

Ross Warren:
The spirit of Cromwell liveth here and we shall barbadoes the ungodly, smite the proud and give glory to God alone.
Then rather spoiled by doffing to the Aristos unless you are lining them up for the tumbrils.
Whooooobah. Do you live in the Fens and are the stories of Hereward's ancestors about to come true?

To avoid misunderstandings the programmes I am on about are the ones which contain a lot of foul language - I am thinking of one radio programme which I listened to some years ago which contained nothing but foul langauage. I welcome programmes on ethnic and sexual diversity.

Troll-Stone likes Zak Goldsmith .......... not a great surprise.

It certainly isn't a done deal. The Conservatives need to start behaving like an opposition party!

Most Britons want jobless immigrants to be asked to leave

Australia and Poland are restricting immigration. The Conservatives need to speak out on this or you will lose the electorate to the BNP!


In my view Gordon is losing, Dave is not winning. To the extent that the Tories gain votes on present evidence these will largely be anti labour votes not pro Tory votes.

We need to know that Dave is actually passionate about something and that something should be England and Tory.

What does a Camaroon party believe in, where is it heading, how is it going to navigate through the present difficulties and how is it going to get from here to where it wants to be?

In the mid 60s I was despondent but there was some light at the end of the tunnel. One day the Tories would be back and they would sort the mess. Today I am also despondent but there is no light. Yes, the Tories might be back but will they actually solve anything?

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker