« Andrew Mitchell: We must call time on British financial aid to China | Main | Andrew Gilligan now turns his attention to how taxpayers' money is being spent by the Johnson regime at City Hall »

Comments

My view is that Britain is fundamentally a Conservative-voting country, and Conservative governments are always elected when the party is worthy of being elected. Thus the thing to explain is not "Why are we back?" but "Why were we ever away?"

In 1997 we were unelectable because we were split and sleazy, and because our economic policy collapsed on Black Wednesday meaning that everyone understood the prosperity of the early 1990s was in spite of, rather than because of, the government's preferred economic policy.

In 2001 we were unelectable because we had no alternative vision of ourselves or society from Tony Blair. This meant we were reduced to arguing on petty narrow issues such as the pound or gypsies and asylum-seekers. Arguing on narrow issues reflects extreme policy priorities - it is very right-wing to believe that the most important thing in politics is gypsies.

The exception to this was 2005. Between 2001 and 2003 the Conservative Party changed its pitch enormously - much of the current positioning was already in place by late 2003. That effort was largely but temporarily reversed between 2003 and 2005 but that was irrelevant. 2005 was the first election since at least 1979 and perhaps since 1951 that was not all about us. Politics from 2001 to 2005 was dominated by international affairs and latterly particularly the Iraq war. The issue came down to whether the voters would more punish Blair over the war or stick with him because of the good performance of the economy. They chose the latter.

With Blair gone, the dominant question in politics is again whether the Conservatives are worthy of being elected. Cameron is. He has a vision of the Conservative Party, what it is for, and a vision of society as it is not yet but he would like it to be. He is competent and plausible, and sticks to his visions under pressure. So he'll win - Conservatives worth electing do.

You're not 'back', it's just that Labour are on the way out.

Tories will never be 'cool' because you're still a bunch of middle-aged whingers from the Moan Counties who the rest of the country see as a bit of a retarded eccentricity.

Don't get ahead of yourselves. Once the election's done and dusted the country will revert back to it's standard position of hating you again.

I think it is less complicated than this list and the number one positive about the Conservative Party is David Cameron. Those of us who support the Party through thick and thin find it difficult to see politics through the eyes of the average voter. David appeals to those voters because of his personal and professional leadership approach. David is the type of leader one can be proud to follow--an articulate exponent of conservative ideas updated for today, a unifier and not a divider, tough with a gentle persona and polite manners, and a respectful approach. I also think he has been quick to let those with good ideas that can be popular ideas take the limelight, and he has been strategic in how and when he speaks and what and whom he supports. Honestly, I would have continued voting for the Party whoever was leader but David is someone we can be proud of in any setting. And he can lead the Party the way that Baroness Thatcher did.

Geoff "I also think he has been quick to let those with good ideas that can be popular ideas take the limelight"

Can you think of a couple of examples of this?

"Tories will never be 'cool' because you're still a bunch of middle-aged whingers from the Moan Counties who the rest of the country see as a bit of a retarded eccentricity."

Ok, here's a suggestion. We split the UK in two - you get the north, we get the south. Deal?

My 2 cents:

I think the role of the modern party image and feel has contributed. A change of logo, fantastic and modern publicity, the binning of the torch which was (rightly or wrongly) associated with Major and Thatcher, and seen as a step towards the past.

Different attitude to social issues. You will not win over the modern British middle class with Section 28 and other discriminatory legislation. I think that the past decade has seen a sea change in attitudes towards homosexuals, and the party's repositioning ie. support for civil partnerships, has won many many votes.

7 Freezing council tax for two years is no big deal and no firm promise has been made to give us a referendum. Still conditional on the treaty not being ratified. "We will not leave it there" is just not good enough,

"Tories will never be 'cool' because you're still a bunch of middle-aged whingers from the Moan Counties who the rest of the country see as a bit of a retarded eccentricity."
Northern Monkey, that economy-sized chip on your shoulder is showing again... There is something in your reasoning for the Tories being "back" but you're wide of the mark with all that sour Home Counties stuff: it's only the Celtic fringes that get Labour elected to power, and if it was up to England there'd never be another Lab administration. That's most of England, mark you, including your own Grim Oop Noorth neck of the woods, doubtless.
Re the survey, which I completed (do I get brownie points?), I laughed out loud at that earnest little section asking which factors might have contributed to current Tory "popularity" (bad word, maybe "tolerability sort of"?) including their alleged Green, gay-friendly, touchy-feely qualities. Really, this bit might almost have been written by the late, great Peter Cook. If intended seriously it underlines the Tories' propensity for self-delusion.

I've had the survey and done it! I cannot see a single positive reason why the party is in the ascendant right now. ALL the reasons appear to me to be negative and are concentrated on the rage of the public at Brown and his party's antics and the depths to which he's dragged us.

We'll probaby win but since Osborne doesn't appear to have a clue we'll probably be a 'one-termer'.

Suits me Richard. That's why I'm such an opponent of any English Parliament because we know what people in the South are like and they'll impose their Tory ways on the rest of the country. At least with Scotland and Wales on our side, things are balanced out a bit.

And as for Andrew Lilico's idea that the UK is 'fundamentally conservative', that's utter rubbish. The SOUTH-EAST (excluding London) is overwhelmingly conservative and its large population means it can impose its views on the rest of the country. Even a donkey could get elected down there provided it had a blue rosette and a plummy accent.

Scotland, Wales, the North of England, London and most of the Midlands are certainly not 'fundamentally Conservative', in fact they're actually fundamentally left-leaning on balance.

We've effectively been 'two nations' in one since the 1980s and that won't change any time soon.

The reasons the Conservatives are in the lead in the polls are very similar to why labour were in the lead in 1997. You have a unpopular government that people are fed up with, lead by a Prime Minister who is not liked and seen as incompetent and you have an opposition lead by a young likeable leader who as positioned his party so it means all things to all men.
Its just history repeating itself although I don`t believe that when the election does come we will see the same sort of landslide Blair had because I don`t think Labour are as hated as much as the Conservatives were back then

Toryboy I agree about the modern image, moving forward with a fresh look was a good idea.

Richard I know you're only joking but people like NM get such an easy rise out of people here, I am proud that I'm a northerner (but if you don't want us around....) do you get my drift.

"we know what people in the South are like and they'll impose their Tory ways on the rest of the country."

Interesting, generally us Tories like to be left alone and to leave others alone (well, the more libertarian-minded of us). I certainly can't think of anything I want imposed on the North.

"Wooing the BBC/Guardian: Hostility towards the Conservatives from the BBC is very damaging in a nation where broadcast media is so powerful (And the route to the brains/ hearts of many BBC big cheeses is through The Guardian)".

Ah, my pet subject. So who is creating the narrative? who is effectively running the public country?

Yes, lefty journalists at the BBC. Complete with Public Sector salaries and pensions.

My question is, what are we going to do about it when we win the next GE?

We can fight Labour & Lib Dems and win. But an enemy like the Beeb don't fight fair.

So I say don't let them. Break up the BBC. End of the license fee - there's a vote winner.
No more daily propaganda from the BBC News teams - from R4 Today, 5 Live all day, TV News bulletins right through to Newsnight.

How would Labour dominate the narrative? EXACTLY!

Where would the EU get its daily drip feed of propaganda? EXACTLY!

And Public Sector job adverts must be shared evenly between the Quality rags.

How would the Guardian survive? EXACTLY!

Now we're on a more level playing field, democracy is safer and we can start to rebuild this once great nation.

And those despicable lefty journo's might have to get proper jobs...

If only I was David Cameron!

"Richard I know you're only joking but people like NM get such an easy rise out of people here, I am proud that I'm a northerner (but if you don't want us around....) do you get my drift."

I assure you I would never wish to divide the UK, let alone England. My best friends at uni were northern. I just see the whole north-south divide as an excuse for some friendly banter.

"A gentler conservatism concerned for the poor".

Even on conservativehome, it seems the Left's narrative holds sway.

If it were only the fact that Labour are widely disliked then you would expect the Lib Dems and the minor parties to prosper as well as the Conservatives. But they haven't.
The reson is I suggest a combination of all those you've mentioned Tim but overwhelmingly the Conservatives seem reasonable again.Most reasonable people find it hard to dislike what we are saying so the hatred that used to exist has largely disappeared. Once we get a hearing then people are more likely in my opinion than anyone else.

"Thus the thing to explain is not "Why are we back?" but "Why were we ever away?""

Andrew Lilico has put his fingure on the big issue, particularly in terms of Blair's majorities. Up to 1997 we were arguing among ourselves, mostly re Europe, while Labour painted us in all sorts of "nasty" images. Unaware,or uninterested, in what the electorate had become to think of us we plowed on with our little debate which not only made us look silly it demonstrated we were not interested in the same things as voters.

The 2001 election demonstrated the problem in spades. Labour's main point was that Hague and the Tories, like Thatcher, would be cutting schools and hospitals. In fact the Tories, Thatcher or Major, never cut the school and hospital budgets but the previous Labour government had. The party apparantly completely unaware of how they had become perceived never bothered to put the record straight (it is still an issue see Polly Toynbee re Osborne's latest speech).

Above all Labour exploited the propensity for Conservatives to see government as action and policies rather than words, hence a stream of anti-Tory propagada, some of it outrageously dishonest poured into the media without any reponse and eventually even Tory supporters believed it. An important point about Cameron is that he not only can communicate he is seen as being prepared to communicate with people.

The last GE was replete with ignored (as opposed to missed) open goals because the campaign was seen as a mechanistic action plan about policies rather than responsive communication. E.g. the dirty hospitals issue - Labour's targets had put cleaning well down the list of priorities and we ended up with the worst MRSA cases in Europe but this was never dwelt on so the next policy issue on the "plan" could be mentioned. (We are still at ignoring open goals, Brown's dodgy dealings with Scottish bankers, particularly HBOS, provides devastating amunition but there is no Tory attempt to put the story together - a Labour oposition would be screaming it from the house tops. I suppose the odd bit of guesswork to put the story together is the reason since any attempt by, say, Osborne would have "senior Tories" highlighting in BBC interviews the guesswork. Unfortunately too many "senior Tories" are selfish gutless ego cases, and, as NortherMonkey has pointed out, people know it.)

I am continually amazed at the idea that David Cameron and his team are in any way responsible for the revival in Tory support. As I have repeatedly pointed out here, all the evidence shows the exact opposite. For example, Cameron had made no headway in the polls at all before October 2007, despite having been leader by then for nearly two years. Local election results in 2007 had been good, but no better (in share of vote) than in 2006, when Cameron had only been leader for a few months, and in both cases were ahead of national opinion polls, demonstrating that the Cameron ideology that the party as a whole was unpopular but that he was reversing that was if anything the opposite of the truth: voters clearly preferred local Conservatives whom they knew and trusted to national figures whom they didn't. When a candidate in a by-election in the summer of 2007 was run under the label "David Cameron's Conservatives" (aping a similar, successful, ploy by the SNP) it was a debacle.

Everybody, including Cameron himself, needs to get something crystal clear. "Decontamination" did not work. Voters do not want a soft-left Tory party. If they really are left-wing they will simply vote for the real thing, Labour or the Lib Dems. If they are not, they might vote Conservative out of lack of choice, but they won't be happy about it. We all know that voters in general feel disconnected from national politics; the Cameroonies need to think hard about why that is, and ponder the example of immigration, where popular opinion has forced polcicies on both Labour and Tory that only a couple of years ago both leaderships would have dismissed out of hand as "racist" and "extremist".

The Conservatives are doing well in the polls now, but that is only - only - due to Labour unpopularity. It is absolutely nothing to do with Cameron, who simply happens to be the Tory leader at the point that Labour's music stopped, and he, and everybody else, need to appreciate that.

As the historical poll ratings you published some time ago showed, Tory/Labour support is almost a zero-sum game, so as one falls the other rises.

If you fall into the mistake of believing otherwise, you'll make policy mistakes in office in the belief that you have public support with you, and will be punished.

You must appreciate that true public support for the Tories, not relative to Labour, is very thin and could turn very, very quickly.

If you want an objective judge, I'll put coolservative.com up again and leave it open for comments. I don't think you'll find people riding a tide of Tory optimism.

Scandalous that the supposedly impartial BBC is in a position to dictate the policies and tactics of a major political party. Clearly, this is a corrupt situation. Normally, I would urge a cautious attitude of reform, but an all but Marxist squint upon society is built into the BBC at every level. It has to go and in toto. Not one particle of the institution - bar its former glories such as "Dad's Army" or "I, Claudius" - should remain.

The reason for the Tories revival IS David Cameron! The polls changed almost as soon as he became leader!

'Wooing the BBC/Guardian: Hostility towards the Conservatives from the BBC is very damaging in a nation where broadcast media is so powerful (And the route to the brains/ hearts of many BBC big cheeses is through The Guardian).'

Why are we playing nicely with the Mediaocracy exactly? A subset of self-adoring onamists cosseted in the ample bosom of taxpayer subsidy like middle-aged children still gob-locked to mummy's ever giving teat.

Use the stick! The Guardian could be scared witless by threatening to pull the public sector job-a-thon adverts and the BBC would soon sort out its editorial if the editor's faced imminent Toryfied extinction and Bullseye's Jim Bowen, or whoever it is, in Gaza would quickly stop cave diving up his own fundament when he gets re-assigned to cover cat stuck up tree related stories in Macclesfield.

3. Labour's economic failure: as important is Labour's incompetence; it has not been able to manage anything really efficiently: 'not fit for purpose', 'systemic failure' are phrases that have applied to most departments at one time or another. 'Management by targets' has regularly given rise to the law of unintended consequences. Few, if any, Labour ministers have served in the armed forces (they might not have involved us in so many wars, if they had), few have risen to the top of their professions or ever run a large enterprise.
4. Gordon Brown v David Cameron; no contest. In addition Brown overcomplicates things that later fail or don't work properly or cause people to spend all their time filling in forms (tripartite regulation, 10p tax fiasco, administration of tax credits, benefit forms, police and teachers etc).
Brown has not been honest with the public - govt stats - and that will come back to bite him.

Labour certainly does not deserve a further term; the conservatives will win but I now want to see them deserve to win.

Aren't some of the comments about the BBC a bit over the top? Personally, I would welcome an inquiry into how they balance their coverage.

An interesting poll would be people's voting intentions if the Tory Party did not exist. I'm sure you'd find that the LibDems would be way ahead.

In short, anyone looks better than the great swindler Brown who is taking Britain down with him, and the Tories are best placed to kick him out as the official opposition.

Remember, but for the combination of a last-ditch tax cut promise (IHT) and Brown's cowardice, after 2 years of the Cameron project (Oct 2007), Labour would have won another term (as even Cameron admits).

Cameron are Clegg are 'normal'. Brown is anything but.

I think you are completely wrong Alex.Cameron's leadership improved the situation from day one of his leadership. Apart from a brief period in the late summer of 2007 we have been ahead throughout. I made the point earlier that these votes could have gone to the Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP & the BNP.Overwhelmingly they haven't, they've come to us.You've allowed your dislike of DC to cloud your judgement.

"Why are we playing nicely with the Mediaocracy exactly? A subset of self-adoring onanists cosseted in the ample bosom of taxpayer subsidy like middle-aged children still gob-locked to mummy's ever giving teat."

===========================================

I totally agree! If we pledged to Privatise the BBC and abolish the TV Licence, retaining only a small Government news and information service paid directly from taxation, we would be on a winner. We would also remove the main propaganda asset of the liberal intelligentsia, the left wing fifth column, who have attacked so much of what was of value in Britain since the mid 1960s to date.

Steve Foley. All political parties think the BBC is against them. Harold Wilson in the sixties made complaint after complaint about them. Margaret Thatcher thought they were a bunch of pinko lefties. The truth is that you can judge the BBC are doing there job correctly and living up to there function in this country that they do upset politicans of all colours.
We would be poorer as a country if we were without them.

Alex Swanson @ 17.44 is a classic demonstration of why Cameron had to "decontaminate" the party. Making things up as he goes along with hardly anything he says little better than half truths he implies clearly that he is happy to knock a Conservative leader who irritates him by not following Swanson's views and being successful. At the last election people liked Conservative policies until they realised whose policies they were, they problably had the Swanson's in mind.

"At the last election people liked Conservative policies until they realised whose policies they were"

David, I remember that internal poll from 2005.

Two questions:
#1 Do you remember the policies in this poll that the public liked (until the Tory brand was revealed)?

#2 How many of these popular policies are still Tory Party policy?

The answers to those two questions will reveal whether Cameron has 'decontaminated' the brand or has been lucky enough to not have made as big a mess as his rival.

The reason for the Tories revival IS David Cameron! The polls changed almost as soon as he became leader!

Not QUITE true. The polls improved throughout the 2005 leadership election.

Phyllis Crash, I agree that Howard closed the gap, but almost immediately Cameron became leader we caught up and overtook Labour. Remember all those efforts to derail him and how he avoided all those elephant traps? I've been a Tory Party member since 1991 and I can't remember a better period to be a Tory. I was a Thatcher fan before she became leader and I reckon DC will be as good a PM!

I think you are completely wrong Alex.Cameron's leadership improved the situation from day one.

No, he didn't. For example, Gordon Brown allowed speculation of a possible election to run through the summer of 2007 precisely because it looked like he would win it. And as pointed out, Cameron's strategy did not result in by-election victory.

You've allowed your dislike of DC to cloud your judgement.

Untrue. I actually voted for him in the 2005 leadership election.

Making things up as he goes along with hardly anything he says little better than half truths

This is untrue and offensive.

he implies clearly that he is happy to knock a Conservative leader who irritates him by not following Swanson's views and being successful.

I'm pointing out facts, not expressing opinions.

At the last election people liked Conservative policies until they realised whose policies they were

But a lot of Cameron's strategy has been to change the policies as well.

I would point out to the general readership that those disagreeing with me are doing so only on the basis of abuse and personal insult, not on the basis of evidence or fact.

"Don't get ahead of yourselves. Once the election's done and dusted the country will revert back to it's standard position of hating you again."

Don't get your hopes up, NorthernMonkey Old Bean! The country absolutely loathes your Great Leader at the moment and that is the Number 1 factor in Labour's Forthcoming Rout. Number 2 factor is David Cameron's Leadership and the fact that Conservatives are successfully reaching out to the centre ground and finding new people who have never voted Conservative before. I am afraid that after the next Election your Party may well be engaged in the kind of Back to the Drawing Board exercise we had to engage in post-1997.

"The truth is that you can judge the BBC are doing there job correctly and living up to there function in this country that they do upset politicans of all colours."

Oh Dear, Jack! Once again I fear you are letting your emotions get in the way of coherent written expression!

No, I am afraid that most complaints about BBC bias come from the Right rather than the Left and with very good reason!

The answers to those two questions will reveal whether Cameron has 'decontaminated' the brand or has been lucky enough to not have made as big a mess as his rival.

Posted by: ToryBlog.com | March 12, 2009 at 19:51

ToryBlog nobody has seen it necessary to ask that question before - I suspect you are trying to wriggle. What is clear is that the wild tax cutting rhetoric of the more extreme party members played right into Labour's hands about schools-n-hospitals. Indeed they perhaps were more than happy to be branded public service cutters hence the lack of attempts to answer Labour's campaign. It was no use Michael Howard making nice noises about hospitals because voters suspected the rhetoric was the real party. Cameron stopped all that, he had to to get people to listen to him. It was called decontamination.

We are 12 points ahead with a year to go. Let's not get carried away.

The truth as always is a mixture of things. Tim has it about right in his list. There is no doubt Labour being in power a long time leads to a wish for change and perhaps not a big active preference for the opposition. History tells us that this is often the way in politics here and abroad. However it is completely wrong to state there are no positives and the new approaches did nothing. It is clear from the mid 90s to nearly 2005 we became far too obsessed with a few single issues that the public just were not really interested in. In the past we were engaged in an obscure internal debate when ordinary people were interested in hospitals and schools and jobs. That has completely changed and in fact we are taking head on all manner of social justice related issues and people notice it and like it. We are much more rounded and human than before and this is what Labour are so keen to try to avoid as they wish to paint us as nasty, uncaring and knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We must resist that at all costs if we are to keep the floating voters that always decide elections.

I would add scrapping ID cards and Heathrow third runway to memorable policies.

Only 12 points ahead after the 12 locust years of the most destructive and horrible government since Chares I?! Shame! Labour should have been crushed by the polls. You will never learn judging by the comments here. I suspect that the EUro elections will be devastating. Was not reporting of the BNP proscribed by the current regime I suspect the conservative party's smugness would evaporate quickly. No I am not a BNP member but at least the BNP recognizes the impossibility of Britain surviving whilst we remain in the EU. UKIP? UKIP is finished. A wasted 20 years brought on by self interested political wannabes- much as New Labour. I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance and the Libertarian Alliance and Countryside Alliance would form a Grand Alliance and would stand candidates - they at least are representative of thinking and dynamic people.

Alex,I was not abusive to you at all. Apart from a period in late 2007 our polls have been good throughout Cameron's leadership. Our failure to take Southall and Sedgefield which are Labour strongholds is hardly a serious problem.

Good article.

I love these articles that wind up the left whingers - Northern Monkey, Jack Stone et al.

he, he

PS. Alex Swanson - chill out will you?

I wish some posters would take a few lessons from some of our regular left wing friends on how to post amusingly yet effectively! I think of the following:-

NorthernMonkey - usually witty apart from when he's having an off day...

Resident Leftie - ditto

Comstock - especially when he's being naughty (but not getting banned by the Editor!) ;-)

I do get a bit tired not only of the Jack Stone nonsense but also of the one or two angry ranters who will know who they are!

Jeff Randall in the Telegraph:

Q: What's the difference between Bernard Madoff and Gordon Brown?

A: One has drained fortunes from gullible victims, plundering their income and savings to create an illusion of prosperity. The other is going to jail.

Malc @ 08:23,

Which policies introduced by Cameron has created this poll lead, iyho?

Sally,

It is being so cheerful that keeps him going,

Stephen

Indeed, Super Blue!

I think of that famous quote in "When Harry Met Sally"

I'll have what she's (he's) having.....

Scotland, Wales, the North of England, London and most of the Midlands are certainly not 'fundamentally Conservative', in fact they're actually fundamentally left-leaning on balance.

It depends what you mean by "conservative" and "left leaning".

I'm reminded of the Monty Python sketch, where the joke is that the working class father in his shirt sleeves living in a London is a playwright and his social arriviste son living in Barnsley is a miner. "Tungsten carbide drills!! Tungsten carbide drills!! You'll never know what it's like to attend matinees and gala luncheons lad..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPSzPGrazPo

When did the Labour party become the party of gala luncheons? When did it become the party of gay rights, of radical feminism, of abortion, of socially liberal ideologies. When did it become and anti-Christian party, an anti-British party an anti-marriage and anti-family party? When did it become the party of multiculturalism and mass immigration?

I wouldn't say these were core working class values at all - far from it.

It's hard to see who the Labour party represents any more. The closest I can think of is left wing academics and state bureaucrats.

There's loyalty in these Northern places to Labour, and opposition to the Tories, almost out of tradition and habit, but I think people are beginning to wonder if it's worth the candle any more. The defections to the BNP are unsurprising.

P.S. Just a thought but I wonder whether "Jack Stone" is one and the same as "Bob Roberts" from Worcester who also posts boringly and predictably (though it must be said rather more grammatically) in the Daily Mail Online?

The personality of the leader is a more important factor in poll leads than policies. Once the electorate trusts a leader they will trust their policies. If they don't like the leader nothing will induce them to listen to them - whatever the policy.

So why are the Conservatives back? Two words. David Cameron.

Well Northern Monkey is right about one thing. So far the conservatives are not winning the next election the Labour party is losing it. Very few of our policies have got through. Instead I hear people saying that they want Labour out and voting Tory is currently seen as the most likely way of achieving that. So far from being complacent about winning the next election we need to be presenting a coherent set of policies that will appeal to the broad spectrum of voters we need to not just vote for us but support us well into the next parliament.The general election is not won yet.

>>I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance and the Libertarian Alliance and Countryside Alliance <<

That would be interesting!

Good point Oscar Miller - it's the personality of the party leader that counts. Cameron has a good personality and this comes across well - he is telegenic. That is how people get their politics these days. The polls show that women voters are more impressed than men and that is important because they outnumber men.
It is a pity that policies matter so little in modern politics - I remember the 1970s and 1980s when policies were still quite important.

In the modern, media dominated age all you can get across is some indication of the direction you are travelling in - this might explain one recent poll which indicated that the public thought that the Tories had the best policies!

Steve Tierney:
">>I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance and the Libertarian Alliance and Countryside Alliance << That would be interesting!"
Yes, but it's fantasy, hugely improbable. The first two probably have much in common but the CA (of which I have some experience) is a bit odd: I've been on the marches/rallies, but the CA centres around fox-hunting, although it presumes to embrace a great deal more; and when you meet numbers of CA types they often as not turn out to be old-style shire Tories from the backwoods, and their appetite for liberty is strictly limited. They argue passionately for the right to continue hunting (quite rightly too) but talk to them about this particular liberty being necessarily linked to liberty in general (don't even mention drugs!) and they start to look baffled...
Anyway, our population is 90% urban and the CA, sadly, is on a demographic loser, which is why their efforts failed utterly to save traditional hunting.

Freddy:
" it's the personality of the party leader that counts. Cameron has a good personality and this comes across well - he is telegenic."
I disagree about DC's personality (smooth, articulate, would make a superior double glazing salesman) but you're right otherwise. And what a dismal, damning indictment: elections as personality contests. They might as well have a swimsuit section too, though that would cause a bit of panic, and frantic gym sessions to tone-up those sixpacks before the big day... What about those of us who don't watch TV and still care about, er, political principle etc? Probably we just deserve to be put down by the vet, as pitiful irrelevant reactionaries. Disenfranchised? Who cares.

The general elections of 2001, and 2005 had the two lowest turnouts since WW2

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/turnout.htm

The electorate didn't much like the Labour gov't, but the parliamentary Conservative Party didn't look up the job.

The difference now, is that:
1. The parliamentary Conservative isn't bickering, and scheming in public.
2. Some Conservative policies have traction: elected police chiefs, welfare reform, making it easier to open new schools. These are positive things people can vote for, and tell themselves they're voting for, while also voting for immigration control.

We need to be more than 12 points in front, until the Tories come out with a detailed programme to deal with the recession/depression in front of us they will not pull further ahead.
The risk in not setting out a programme will be that we enter government with a small majority, when what we will need is a strong endorsement from the electorate to deal with the problems that will face us

It's not what I think of Cameron that is important - it is what the t.v. audience think of him!!

Personally I think he is really good, which is why I voted for him in the leadership election!

As far as detailed policies are concerned, that is the last thing you want to offer because of all those left wing media journalists out there who would take great delight in ripping your policies to shreds at every available opportunity in the next two years. Most of your target audience won't be able to understand the details either, so you will have scored an own goal!
Cameron's solution to the problem is clever but old sweats like me find it difficult to stomach - it's not the way we did things in our time!

I would say the main reason is economics and the changes in opinion in the few marginal constituencies that decide the election.
I actually voted for Blair back in 1997, I rue the day, but I was tired of Tory sleaze. In our undemocratic country, where MP's are selected from the centre, where sleazebags can't be recalled and fired, anger builds until it becomes a flood.
If Cameron wants to avoid Labour returning to power he should restore local accountability. Give people the ability to ditch their MP during Parliament.
It won't happen of course, we'll just get more high tax, statist, authoritarianism.


"Don't get ahead of yourselves. Once the election's done and dusted the country will revert back to it's standard position of hating you again."

Don't project your opinions onto the rest of the country.

I admit though, the thought of the hell that you're about to go through does put a spring in my step.

Cameron almost ruined the Tories with his various betrayals. Had he stuck to his Red Balls-like attitude to grammar schools and his Trappist silence on immigration, the core vote would have stayed at home. He was saved less by his brinkmanship than by the combination of Ashcroft's ruthless efficiency and Brown's cowardly dithering. Since then, admittedly, he has learned to walk a tightrope between his party - largely to his right - and the left wing media, which he hopes to neutralise. It is not a bold or a noble strategy. It leaves in place the nauseating cant of the age about "communities". It fails utterly to provoke the magma like upheaval against the bossy, PC Gestapo. In fact, it is thoroughly machiavellian; an exercise in recouping the political nation from its socialist sympathies and control. One must admire the self-discipline and subtlety this involves; but equally, one must deplore the corresponding failure genuinely to engage or represent the electorate. Worse, any government resulting from this expedient will find itself hampered and blocked by its own timidity and the great issues of the day will go unaddressed. The currency of debate remains debauched by compromise and insincerity and words such as "racist" and "sexist" and "elitist" continue to bloat and grow and overshadow legitimate sentiment. And always, the BBC remains, now to be wooed and placated by a newly subservient political class. This is democracy?

Simon Denis, thanks for a succinct, cogent, pin-sharp assessment, best I've seen for a long time. You will have upset the Tory groupies here, who seem immune to anything but the anticipated orgasmic thrill of sharing, however vicariously, in victory by the Boy Dave. Political principle seems to have fallen by the wayside. Well might you ask, "This is democracy?" Presumably you intend this to be rhetorical - I hope so, since you won't get a straight answer.

Things have moved on since my middle age. Cameron has to accept the political campaigning ground as it is now, not as it was in 1980s, when I was in my prime.

If we can only win the election, the new Tory government can ensure that BBC output is balanced and that the wilder excesses (but only the wilder excesses)of PC are banned. Our party will control the funds, and because we control the money we will control the political agenda.

In my opinion, if we are too right wing, or if our opponents and their "media choir" can deliberately misconstrue what we say as racist or sexist then they will be able to "monster" us and we will lose the election.

The party needs to be seen as moderate and dispassionate in everything it does - then we shall win!

The biggest problem Conservatives have is that NuLabour is just seen as Old Tories with Red Coats. The worst excesses of this Labour lot are hated, yes, but partly because if people wanted that sort of thing they would vote Tory! The very word Tory is part of the 'branding problem'.

I'll pigeonhole myself to save others the trouble. I used to be Conservative, now I'm just conservative but after betrayal by Tory Sleaze in the late 90s I've been NOTA (none of the above)ever since. Cameron and his values are the only reasons I started listening to Conservatives again. Sensible policies like due diligence when 'investing' so much in failed companies and coming back time and again since November to making finance available to good but struggling businesses have kept my interest. My worry is that the party hasn't really changed. Old Tories have just put up Cameron to fool mugs like me to give them another chance at the trough.

Back to image then, the fact that it's still on the list is worrying. In a close race between similar parties, image might be important, but given that Labour are pariahs you'd hope not to be judged too similar. If the old Tories still thrive then Image is vital because without a massive con-trick, the public still won't have them back. If the party really has changed then image should be superfluous because the change will be obvious. The fact that it isn't means that the clear difference has yet to be established.

There is one area, perceived to be anathema to old Tories and claimed by Labour as its defining principle, namely social justice. The beauty is that Labour have betrayed all their principles as surely as they have wrecked the economy. The position for Champion of social justice is vacant.

Social justice should be the foundation of every single conservative policy. Right now it's number 10 on the list and doesn't even feature in the bullet title. It's some after thought of green and friendly which are in fact some of the softer, less obvious dividends of a social justice ideology.

It's important because "Tories" are seen as greedy, self serving, sleazy. "There is no such thing as Society". I believe Maggie meant "Be self reliant, don't be a burden on Society", but the roots of self reliance have been corrupted into the tree of self serving greed. This is seen as Tory ideology. Self reliance should still be one of the cornerstones of new Conservatism because without it you can't contribute to society, and without society, there is nothing; nothing that will stand the test of time.

Think of the problems that plague our country and very few have no social (in)justice element. For example, our system allows our politicians to be sleazy, unelected, incompetent, unaccountable, to fix their own pay, to fiddle expenses, to hide behind silly rules and clever words. Our sovereignty is gifted to Europe. Europe overrides our highest courts and supports big business importing small towns of foreign workers in makeshift accommodation to undermine UK communities. Welfare as a lifestyle choice, postcode lotteries on Health & Education. You need a room full of lawyers to understand your rights and freedoms and you need an accountant to do your tax unless you can afford an expensive one in which case tax becomes optional. We have devolution for only the three smallest nations of the union. England suffers interference in its affairs from all sides and all the while inequalities within England - North/South, Rural/Urban divides, haves / have-nots - go unaddressed.

For hundreds of years our parliamentary democracy has served more or less. Open to abuse yes, but never so sorely abused to break it completely or to be worth the risk of changing it. Not even Tory sleaze accomplished this. Enter New Labour, lies, deceit, broken promises, spin, spin, spin and trust in politicians is utterly destroyed. Worse, there is nothing we can do until they deem to give us a vote or 5 years is up. Fundamental change is needed.

When Bush and the US system broke America, Obama could point to their founding principles and say, "Look how far we have fallen". Their founding truths are so self-evident that school children can recite them. We have nothing remotely close - Magna Carta? Please. Given the unprecedented scale of the rebuilding job we face and the faith we need to put in our political leadership and public institutions to achieve it, our unwritten constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Give us a system of government: of the people, by the people for the people with social justice at its core and the pursuit of happiness and value in society as its goals and some of the other problems will almost fix themselves as the people engage in the process.

Some in Labour are already worried that Cameron has mastered the language of social justice. They can see the danger, they are running scared. Sadly though, social justice appears to be just one thread amongst many and there is no action to match the words. Defining a new system of Government can start now. Rebuilding trust can start today. Labour can't steal this policy because the public wouldn't believe it and a fairer system would just make matters worse for them.

This is CONSERVATIVEhome so expect a lot of Tory groupies!

I have been a loyal member of the Tory party since 1991. I am a lifelong Tory supporter. All my family were Tories.

I desperately want to see the Conservatives win the next General election because I truly believe that Brown and Co are ruining this country and that those worst affected by their continual mistakes are those in the Labour supporting classes.

I realise, however, that I am getting old and that the party must change if it is to win the next election. Cameron offered that change which is why I voted for him in the leadership election. The party can't be too right wing if it voted for Cameron rather than David Davis.

I must say I am rather pleased with Cameron's progress so far. He has stopped the rowing in the parliamentary party that nearly scuppered us. He has brought back William Hague and although I am a eurosceptic I feel pleased that he has felt sufficiently secure to give a front bench job to Ken Clarke. Our local election results have been marvellous. Boris has been elected against all the odds. The party has achieved it's first parliamentary by election win since 1988! Everybody is focused and "singing from the same hymn sheet."

I have to admit that Cameron is the best Tory leader since the wonderful Maggie Thatcher.

I have got a very long memory and I clearly remember what they were saying about Maggie before 1979. Some said she wouldn't be any good because she was a woman. We now know that she turned out to be the 2nd best PM this country has ever had. I seem to remember that her main tenet was that you had to analyse a problem in order to solve it. I think that that is what Cameron is doing.

To avoid misunderstandings, the expression "singing from the same hymn sheet" in my last post does not refer to any religion, or religion in general. It was an expression used in the 1980s and 1990s to indicate that all those involved were telling the same story. The author of this post would be mortified if his post had offended anybody.

"I have to admit that Cameron is the best Tory leader since the wonderful Maggie Thatcher". FREDDY

Where is the proof Fred? And in any case with the exception of IDS (I can hear the groans, but it was a pity that he was stabbed in the back) there has not been much in the way of competition, has there?

Cameron is untried and untested and his voice unheard or not raised on too many politically correct
policies of Labour; indeed he even endorses such policies.

It is not enough to appear to be reasonable - Chamberlain appeared to be reasonable, but mistaken.

The probability is that with Cameron at the helm, the obedient, house trained, whipped, career minded Tory crew on deck will, to use that wonderfully descriptive cliche, be busily engaged in re-arranging the deck chairs as on the Titanic (since renamed HMS EU).

Captain Cameron and his buccaneers will become becalmed in an enveloping EU fog; eventually to driven by the winds of EU whim, first here then there, never returning to see the white cliffs of Dover, but in danger of being boarded and taken over by the Brussels crew, leaving England to founder.

I shall be staying on dry land and I expect I will eventually have to seek passage on another vessel.

I realise, however, that I am getting old and that the party must change if it is to win the next election. Cameron offered that change which is why I voted for him in the leadership election. The party can't be too right wing if it voted for Cameron rather than David Davis.

David Davis "right wing"? If he ever was those days are over. He is now imho just your average politically career minded clone. He has moved to the left of Labour and is worried about the detention of suspect terrorists (probably keeping him awake at nights).

Too much haste and not enough speed. The first paragraph should be in inverted commas and attributed to Freddy

The party should become more right wing, if it is to make the radical changes which our country needs. Yes, the party has plenty of good policies, but not regarding every issue.

For example, energy conservation and independence are far more important than worrying about carbon emissions. Gradually, potential voters are realising this. So, why not the party?

On a more positive note, many people now see that Labour do not really support small businesses or savers. Nor are they accepting Labour's futile claim, that Conservatives would "do nothing" to help alleviate our country's economic crisis.

I loyally supported IDS when he was party leader. Even though I AM a eurosceptic I had voted for Ken Clarke. I did not approve of the way in which the IDS leadership was ended, but the party has to move on.

Regarding Cameron, he is not now untried and untested - remember the "grammars" row, and the two "Brown bounces"? I approve of grammar schools because one of them helped to move my dad (the son of a bootmaker) from the working to the middle class. Unfortunately, state grammars here have been extinct for many years and there is no PRACTICAL possibility of bringing them back. My dad's old school, by the way, is now a private school.

I don't like the EU much, but I think that the practical way to deal with the problem is to use the methods that Maggie used to win us a rebate. Precipitous withdrawal from the EU would ruin what remains of our economy.

David Davis WAS right wing. If you don't beleive me just look at the literature he sent out in the leadership election. When I read the leaflet I thought - they want to go back to the past - we've served up all of these policies many times. His campaign was supported by almost all of the right wing MPs in the party. I am pleased to say that after the leadership election he loyally supported Cameron. Davis was a very good shadow Home Secretary.

Sorry, DMMLIODU, but if you don't think DD is right-wing, you should try following his output 100% and not 1%.

Great thread. @toryblog.com asks a fascinating question- what would happen to support for other parties if the Conservatives didn't exist? Could we test that on party members in a ConHome survey? I'd love to see a yougov national poll ask it too. Taken together would be informative re differential between voters and activists.

To run that sort of poll might damage the Tory party, Graeme.

Why do I think that Cameron is the best Tory leader since Maggie Thatcher?

1) He has stopped the squabbling in the parliamentary party - do you remember one particularly critical editorial in the Daily Mail? At one stage I thought that the party was doomed.

2)All strands of the parliamentary party are working towards a common goal. The shadow cabinet now includes William Hague AND Ken Clarke.

3)Their press and media operation is much slicker. They've managed to get a lot of journalists on board.

4)Their policies look more modern. Policies that pleased us oldies in the 1980s don't necessarily appeal to todays 30 and 40 year olds. To attract new voters our policies must be more moderate than they were.

5) Since Cameron took over our election and opinion poll results have been spectacular!

I do hope the Conservatives are going to speak out against this price rise in alcohol and Labours plans to restrict the number of fast food restaurants in a town. It's downright dictatorial. Not only will many jobs be lost in the fast food industry (haven't we lost enough pubs thru this non smoking fiasco) but who do they think they are?

The price rise in alcohol will lead to more contraband liquor being supplied and demand rises and that journey across to Calais will be better value than ever!

Please say something Conservatives!!!! Speak up!

Emily,

Any tax rises on alcohol should be VERY selective. As George Osborne said, people who get drunk and disorderly e.g. Euan Blair do so on particular drinks - alcopops and lager. Taxes on other drinks should be unchanged,

Stephen.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

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:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker