A YouGov survey in today's Telegraph gives a big boost to David Davis' leadership hopes.
David Davis is the first or second choice of 54% of 615 party members surveyed (and of 36% of 1,005 Conservative voters).
David Cameron is second placed at 30% amongst members (15% amongst voters).
Then come: Liam Fox 24% (16%); Ken Clarke 19% (23%); Sir Malcolm Rifkind 13% (9%).
Interestingly Ken Clarke (and John Redwood) did score very highly when it came to the kind of candidate that members and voters defintely did not want. 54% of members and 42% of voters didn't want Mr Clarke as leader. David Davis had the lowest negative ratings.
The Telegraph/YouGov survey also found nearly three-quarters of party members in favour of MPs retaking the ultimate say over the next leader.
The members so supportive of the rollback of grassroots democracy may like to consider that the MPs are much more likely to back the candidate - Ken Clarke - they like the least. In giving up their voting rights they might find that they might allow MPs to endorse a grand-stop-Davis-coalition.
If you wish to register your opinion on the rule changes and who should be the next Tory leader, take the ConservativeDemocracy.com survey.
No surprise to see Davis out in front, or Cameron as the closest behind him - those are the only 2 that the members have heard anything about since the election (with the possible exception of Clarke). They cannot assess other contenders - they haven't heard anything about them or from them (contrast the various interviews and profiles on Davis and Cameron).
Bluntly, it would be astonishing if Davis was not clearly in the lead at this stage. He has been organising pretty much since 1997, he has a campaign in place, and a team working on his behalf. If not now, never!
The poll is bad news for Clarke though - as an archetypal Old European he might be going the way of the constitution.
Liam Fox did well to get 24% on the basis of zip by way of a public campaign. It would be interesting to see how he would get on if he started one.
The Telegraph got it right today though, in its leader. Time to stop playing dream-team fantasy football, or mouthing platitudes about "reaching out". Instead, lets concentrate on what reaching out might mean in terms of policy direction, and have a serious debate about where we want to go as a party.
Posted by: Simon C | 01 June 2005 at 11:01
The problem is that that debate is now being had through the prism of the leadership election.
Posted by: Edward | 02 June 2005 at 10:29
That is a problem - but there would have been at least an element of it even if Howard had said he would be staying on. Comments from frontbenchers would have been seen as jockeying for position.
The best way to avoid it is to engage with ideas, and to focus speeches, articles and interviews on policy direction, not on personalities, personal narratives or neckwear. David Willetts took a step in that direction on Today this morning, & I'm looking forward to reading his speech at the SMF tonight when it appears.
Posted by: Simon C | 02 June 2005 at 11:18
The party needs a leader that doesn`t just appeal to the thirty or so per cent of the electorate who will always vote Conservative but the other ten per cent who usually don`t but who the party must get back on board if they are to form a government.
I have come to the conclussion that a Ken Clarke, David Cameron ticket is the best way to appeal to those outside of the party`s core vote.
The party must accept that it is not going to win with yet another right-wing leader standing on yet another right-wing platform and turn to those who can appeal to those on the centre ground where elections are one or lost.
Ken and David would do that and I am certain that if the party is brave enough to embrace these two brilliant politicans the party will win the next election.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 02 June 2005 at 15:43
A Clarke leadership will lose more supporters than it attracts. I think the Telegraph You.Gov poll makes that perfectly clear.
Why should the Conservative Party accept a leader who has track record of laziness and incompetence (see his stint in the Home Office) and whose views are inimicable to them?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 June 2005 at 17:29