David Cameron's day began with breakfast with the FT. He sat a few tables away from David Davis and Ken Clarke in the Imperial Hotel's main dining room. Mr Davis was eating breakfast with Tim Hames, Peter Riddell and others from The Times. Ken Clarke sat opposite Rachel Sylvester and a very large gathering of journalists from The Telegraph.
Mr Cameron had plently to smile about over his cornflakes. A very encouraging ICM poll in The Guardian found that Mr Cameron had most effect on target voters of all the leadership contenders. The survey was hurriedly photocopied and distributed to representatives in the conference hall. Representatives were handed leaflets throughout the day. Clarke, Cameron and Davis supporters were all offering booklets, badges and bumpf of various kinds. The rank-and-file members were being actively courted. It was democracy in the raw and it was fantastic.
Less good was Mr Cameron's speech practise. All the speakers have an opportunity to rehearse their speeches on the main stage of the conference hall but they usually do so without members of the press in attendance. Unknown to Mr Cameron a host of Fleet Street's finest heard every word of his speech and saw him punch the air in celebration at the end of a read-through that he clearly thought had gone well. Expect Mr Cameron's team to "pre-brief" his speech early!
That poll did not show David Cameron had the most effect on target voters. It showed that when viewing silent footage of all the candidates marginally more people responded well to Cameron's mannerisms (in the key section we're talking about a fraction of a percentage difference between him Clarke and Davis).
Still, it's hardly surprising that his campaign isnow trying to create momentum by selectively citing the headline figures...
Posted by: James Hellyer | 03 October 2005 at 20:15
James, to your credit you take a really deep interest in politics, but the population in general don't and whether this survey showed it or not David Cameron does come across well. His message is generally well recieved. Until people are willing to listen to a Conservative we get no-where. I think they'll give Cameron a chance to make his case. Delighted with the punch in the air too, good to see his spirit.
Posted by: AnotherNick | 03 October 2005 at 20:27
This poll did not show Cameron's message was well received. No information was provided about the candidates. The footage shown of them was silent. The response was to their appearance - that's all.
That is no indicator of their ability to commnicate a message. You might like the look of someone,but if you don't like what they sound like, what they say and how they say it, then you still won't vote for them. This doesn't even show people are willing to listen to him.
It's just another conference week poll being desperately overinterpreted by the candidates.
As for my own opinion, I don't think Cameron does come across well. To me he seems more like a poor actor then a man of sincerity - an impression not helped by his campaign having been little more than a series of positioning statements.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 03 October 2005 at 21:06
James, 13 anti-Cameron posts in 30 hours. Are you out to set a record?
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 03 October 2005 at 22:00
Are you out to set a record?
No, I'm out to change the record of everyone who witters on about "change" or who uses opinion polls as their prop and staff.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 03 October 2005 at 22:06
There is something that's not quite right about him though so I think I know where James is coming from, I can't put my finger on it. Most people at work haven't heard of him yet I'll ask again at the end of the week and I'll see how much impact he has made.
I thought Cameron's wife did an excellent job on the news when she responded to "very different here than Kensington isn't it" she smartly retorted that she'd grown up in Scunthorpe which wasn't much different.
Posted by: a-tracy | 03 October 2005 at 22:39
Cameron is very professional (like his website - the most clinical of all the candidates) but I wonder whether his well-packaged social liberalism will go down well in the party. Watch, for example, how Alan Duncan got applause in his speech, but while some stood, others sat slovenly. Equally, Cameron might sound good in Wood Lane but does he touch hearts and minds in the Associations?
Posted by: Fox Blogger | 03 October 2005 at 23:02
A safe position since is unlikely that Dr Fox will ever top the polls.
Cameron's site very clearly communicates his priorities. By contrast, Liam Fox's site is an example of apalling communication: flashing!; unsolicited sound; you have to read interminable speeches to get any understanding of his views or vision.
The leader has to be a clear communicator in all media!
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 03 October 2005 at 23:12
I'm afraid Cameron deals exclusively in meaningless platitudes like 'reaching out', 'modern' ad nauseum. If he makes the final two, it will tell us rather a lot about the state of the Party.
If the polls are to be believed, I wouldn't be surprised if his "best new friends" suddenly desert him as soon as he becomes leader.
He's like a 'Stepford wife' moulded from plastic by a clinical scientist.
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 03 October 2005 at 23:12
A safe position since is unlikely that Dr Fox will ever top the polls.
A sensible position since quantative data isn't any use in this scenario. That's why it's wholly inconsistent.
Cameron's site very clearly communicates his priorities.
Yes, it very clearly communicates his vacuous platitudes and interminable introspection.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 03 October 2005 at 23:20
Compared to Fox's, which is simply vacuous.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 03 October 2005 at 23:29
Just perused little lord Cameron's website.
Have ever so many words been written and so little actually meant?
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 03 October 2005 at 23:35
I wouldn't call the endorsements ot Fox's speeches vacuous - unlike Cameron's entire oeuvre.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 03 October 2005 at 23:36
Another interesting poll/survey on Newsnight, which was very favourable to Cameron. It does seem to be the case that he engages with the viewers in a way that no other candidate can. Another one to watch out for is The Daily Politics' "perception panel"; although it is not entirely scientific, it will provide great feedback about how ordinary voters view the contenders. I would be willing to place a large wager that Cameron will top that too.
As a young Conservative, DC appears the most exciting prospect - many of my 'liberal' student friends (one of whom thought until the age of thirteen that 'tory' was a swear word) would consider voting Conservative if Cameron was leader. It may be hard for Right-wingers to hear, but these are the votes we must win.
Posted by: Henry Cook | 04 October 2005 at 00:38
"As a young Conservative, DC appears the most exciting prospect - many of my 'liberal' student friends (one of whom thought until the age of thirteen that 'tory' was a swear word) would consider voting Conservative if Cameron was leader."
As another young Conservative, David Cameron appears the most fake prospect. And as James Hellyer has pointed out, just because people say they would consider voting Conservative doesn't mean they would actually vote Conservative, particularly the sort of people who think that 'tory' is a swear word. Most of my contemporaries have told me they believe that Ken Clarke would be the best leader for the Conservatives, and for the most part my contemporaries are not Conservative supporters or voters, but you don't see me implying that we'd suddenly secure their support if we elect Ken Clarke as leader.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 04 October 2005 at 01:22
Another interesting poll/survey on Newsnight, which was very favourable to Cameron. It does seem to be the case that he engages with the viewers in a way that no other candidate can
Another push poll, where the results could be heavily skewed not only by the footage selected to represent each candidate (note how Cameron had a chance to orate, while Sir Malcolm was on a lunchtime discussion prgramme talking about pensions - how comparable), but also by the loaded discussion sessions.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 October 2005 at 07:29
Cameron is a lot more right wing than he is generally perceived IMO.
Posted by: greg | 04 October 2005 at 09:04
Daniel, your argument seems to be that it is irrelevant whether somebody appeals to the non-Tory vote.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 04 October 2005 at 09:15
I watched newsnight last night.If that's I scientific poll I'm a banana.I simply don't believe that people would decide to vote on the basis of watching a two minute speech.Having said that Camerons speech was excellent the most inspiring by far.
Posted by: malcolm | 04 October 2005 at 09:33
Malcolm, Cameron hasn't given his speech yet...
But yes, that Newsnight poll was deeply flawed. It was especially noticeable that people looked around before voting. Peer pressure, much?
Daniel, your argument seems to be that it is irrelevant whether somebody appeals to the non-Tory vote.
I think it's that there's a difference between someone saying they'd be more inclined towards the Conservatives (which is what these polls asked) and actually being prepared to vote for them. By way of illustration, I'm more inclined to Labour under Blair's leadership than I would be under Brown. However I would never vote Labour. These polls miss that distinction by leaving out voting intention questions
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 October 2005 at 09:38
But James, you're not a swing voter. When a swing voter says they'd be more inclined to one party or another, it at least carries some weight.
Let's not loose perspective: we want the leader who will give us the best chance of winning the next election. I can abide any of the leaders on offer. I can't abide another 9 years of Labour government.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 04 October 2005 at 09:48
When a swing voter says they'd be more inclined to one party or another, it at least carries some weight.
You're missing my point. Such statements in these polls do not convey or indicate voting intention. A "swing voter" could say they are more inclined to vote Conservative, but that doesn't mean anything if "more inclined" still means they don't in the end. It's too vague a question to be of any real use.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 October 2005 at 09:56
My understanding of your posts is that you're effectively saying there's no relationship between the numbers inclined to a party and the numbers that will vote for a party.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 04 October 2005 at 10:08
James,I was referring to Camerons 'launch' speech which was I think the speech Newsnight showed in their poll.
Posted by: malcolm | 04 October 2005 at 10:21
No. No. No. Being inclined towards a party is not the same as being prepared to vote for it. While one can assume that people prepared to vote for a party are inclined towards it, the reverse assumption cannot be made quite simply because people something can make you "more inclined" towards a party without necessarily making you vote for it.
The two are different things and these polls offer no substantive quantitive or qualitative analysis that suggests these people would vote a certain way based upon their "inclination" from a unknown base.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 October 2005 at 10:22