544 Responses to “Witney”

1. Joe

   I have to add – I just cant see the evidence for Cameron causing the party any damage. His leadership ratings are middling to good ignoring Milibands and Cleggs. We gained the most seats for absolutely ages and are polling higher still than the election with excellent local election results last year.

   Saying we would have won with Hague as leader in 2010 is just opinion, fair enough we all have them but its not based on any kind of evidence. I just dont think DC is Shauns type of leader. A right winger from Stoke and a moderate southern toff were never really going to see eye to eye tbh. Agreed that city bonuses candidate choice and an insufficently rightest stance on europe are bad points of his leadership though.

   February 1st, 2012 at 2:35 pm
2. Tory

   I very much agree, Joe.

   February 1st, 2012 at 4:44 pm
3. Shaun Bennett

   I have to respond to LBernard’s points:

   “polls suggest that Cameron is a much more popular leader than Clegg and Miliband”

   And I keep replying until I’m blue in the face that that’s not entirely difficult given the competition Cameron faces at the moment. But we can’t rely on Labour being silly enough to leave Miliband in place forever.

   Instead of measuring how Cameron does against the other leaders (still no better than a SECOND hung parliament I might add, with about 40 seats being lost to Labour and a similar number picked up from the Lib Dems) try measuring against the potential of a really decent leader who actually sounds like a Conservative, uses Conservative rhetoric, cares about Conservative issues and makes the right choices-unlike Cameron.
   There are plenty of possibilities if you have any imagination to see them.

   “We did not win the 2010 election for a number of reasons.”

   This is a good list:

   “The Clegg bounce due to the TV debates meant that some floating voters who may have been tempted by Cameron decided to vote for Clegg”

   The single most important factor of the general election. But it was because of Cameron’s own personal strategic failure in a) allowing the debates in the first place and b) allowing Clegg IN them!
   I agree this was important. It was thanks to Cameron that we lost then?

   “There was fear by some that a Tory party win may usher in the days of Thatchers conservatism and so they stuck with Labour”

   Not amongst floating voters, only amongst those who by and large would not vote for the party anway. The liberal elite, chattering classes, the hardcore Labour supporters and the committed Lib Dems. Cameron failed to take these voters even with his degrading of the Tory message. We can reject and ignore this factor entirely because it cannot be overcome.

   “Many people also were not so keen on having two former Eton and Oxford educated classmates running the country feeling that they will be far removed from everyday society”

   I disagree that was a major issue. But what you’re saying is that having Cameron as leader proved a drag on the Tory vote. Which is what I’m saying.

   “As Barnaby mentioned he (and his candidates) struggled to come across as right wing enough in certain parts of the country (particularly the South East) on issues such as crime and immigration although in fairness the party did very well here.”

   Making the party too beige for traditional Tories to get excited about supporting. Yes, so Cameron made a personal strategic error which proved a drag on the Tory vote. Which is what I’m saying.

   “There was not enough emphasis placed on the benefits reform ideas”

   So another tactical error from Cameron then.

   “A very flaky stance on Europe didn’t help matters which meant that we lost thousands of votes to UKIP”

   See the above. So another case of Cameron proving a drag on the Tory vote. Which is what I’m saying.

   “He failed to distance himself from the City enough to show the public that he would be tough on bankers”

   Probably not as important, but if you accept it, another Cameron error nonetheless.

   “Some very poor candidate choices who proved unpopular (Westminster North springs to mind)”

   Indeed, the crazy and unpopular A List imposing some pretty poor candidates. Another personal initiative of Cameron’s that failed.

   “He failed to make a massive dent into Labours ethnic minority voters”

   Another one we can forget about I think. I agree that it would be a good idea to do that, but not actually something the Tories HAVE to do. You might as well say that he failed to win a seat in Manchester or Liverpool (another test that isn’t strictly necessary or likely). Not that anybody would say that of course…oh.

   “Regardless of these points Cameron has managed to make the Conservative Party more competitive again”

   Not sure how you make the leap between the Conservatives becomming competitive again and Cameron personally being responsible for it. In fact, the only times the Tories have gone up in the polls under Cameron is when he-or Osborne-has been forced against their judgement to do things that are really Conservative and right wing. The rest of the time, when its been Cameron sounding wishy-washy and talking about gay rights, the environment and letting sunshine win the day, we have been lower in the polls. Ponder on that.

   “and if all goes well with the economy then I cannot see why he cannot win in 2015″

   Indeed. But thats up to Osborne, not Cameron.

   “I do think that there is more of Cameron to come but he will only come into his own once the Lib Dems have gone”

   Which of course he can’t do for 4 more years because of the monumental strategic mistake of giving the Lib Dems fixed term parliaments EARLY on in the coalition and not delaying to see how things went.

   Sorry if these ideas go against the convential wisdom that a lot of people want to believe, but when Cameron is Cameron the Tories suffer in the polls and when he is forced to go against his institncts and sound more right-wing the party goes UP in the polls.

   Whe Cameron is Cameron he makes blunder after blunder (as LBernard’s list so helpfully points out), when he is forced by the party right to do what he doesn’t want to do, he usually gets widespread praise for it.

   There are definate trends developing here aren’t there? What does that tell us, do you think?

   February 1st, 2012 at 4:59 pm
4. Shaun Bennett

   “Saying we would have won with Hague as leader in 2010 is just opinion, fair enough we all have them but its not based on any kind of evidence.”

   See my last paragrpah of the above Joe. I agree that it can’t be proven beyond any doubt-I have no access to a parallel universe where Hague won 2010 by a landslide unfortunately-but I think we can make the hypothesis quite happily.

   The fact is that in 2010 the media and the electorate were by and large calling for the sort of right-wing programme Hague had offered in the wrong circumstances a decade earlier. They wanted an honest, down-to-earth politican rather than a Tony Blair PR driven clone. Thats not what Cameron offered them, he gave them the message that the Tories were New Labour and that he was Tony Blair in disguise. And in 2010 it completely misjudged what people wanted.

   And as I said upthread, he learned all the wrong lessons of Blairism and then refused to understand or believe that they were misunderstood. Blair may well have pursued gay rights, the environment and being soft on Europe-but he would never have made that the basis of his election campaign because he knew the electorate were entirely against him on it. He fought on tough on crime, bread and butter issues and the economy whilst convincing people that his party was more competant than the Tories.

   By contrast, Cameron campaigned on his pet projects, some airey fluff about the ‘big society’ that he came up with the night before the manifesto launch, and issues that were designed to appeal to the liberal elite to show the party had changed and NOT to ordinary people in swing seats.

   No evidence that anyone else could have done better? I think that lot is enough to be getting on with for starters!

   February 1st, 2012 at 5:08 pm
5. doktorbuk

   Leadership debates needed all three main party leaders. No justification for excluding Nick Clegg at all.

   Fixed Term Parliaments is a masterstroke too. Not only is it democratic (something this country needs a lot more of), but it’s also something which is difficult to undo. No party could possibly say “Let’s give the Prime Minister back the power to call elections.”

   February 2nd, 2012 at 8:12 am
6. richard

   “As leader of the Conservative party Cameron has sought to rebrand the Conservative party, making the environment a central plank of policy, pushing for the selection of female candidates and largely avoiding traditional Conservative issues such as immigration.”

   AW’s description at the top indicates where Cameron went wrong.

   He tried to appeal to the metropolitan and public sector middle classes by being progressive – ‘vote blue go green’.

   Whereas Labour appealed to them in populist terms – we’ll protect your jobs and give you pay rises.

   Populism always beats progressivism.

   Especially in difficult economic times.

   The misreading of the economy by Cameron and Osborne was their second great mistake.

   February 2nd, 2012 at 9:12 am
7. Joe

   I think those two were both mistakes, but they are both in the past and nevertheless theyve done a lot of good for the party overall.

   I do agree with Shaun and Richard however, that we should go for a (slightly!) more populist right wing agenda at the next election – I think weve shook off the nasty image quite well for swing voters (obviously the grauniad readers will always think we are nasty) now time to tell them which party will look after the economy, eu, immigration etc. better. That combined with the falls of the Libdems and directionless labour should give us a majority at the next election.

   February 2nd, 2012 at 9:28 am
8. Joe

   Havng said that, the gay rights agenda is a great idea and besides its obvious fairness will cement the not nasty image.

   February 2nd, 2012 at 9:30 am
9. Tim Jones

   ‘Instead of measuring how Cameron does against the other leaders (still no better than a SECOND hung parliament I might add, with about 40 seats being lost to Labour and a similar number picked up from the Lib Dems) try measuring against the potential of a really decent leader who actually sounds like a Conservative, uses Conservative rhetoric, cares about Conservative issues and makes the right choices-unlike Cameron.’

   IDS, Hague and Howard for that criteria and they all got hammered at the ballot box

   In fact IDS was such a poor leader they dotched him before he even got the chance to go to the elecorate, replacung hin with the hugely overrated Michael Howard

   Of course circumstances in 2010 were different – very different – from 2001 and 2005 – but the Tories had edged ahead of Labour in the opinion polls when Cameron got elected in 2005, waaay before the economic collapse, whereas poll after poll showed that had David Davis won – more in tune with traditional Conservatism – Labour would have retained their leader.

   That’s why the likes of Nadine Dorres and Adam Holloway backed Camerpon despite declaring for Davis earlier in the campaign

   To say that a traditional Conservative would have done better is nonsense.

   Had Davis won, the Tories would more than likely be trailing Brown when he first got in far more than Cameron was at the time – which would have been enough for Brown to have called that snap election in 2007, which he would have won

   February 2nd, 2012 at 10:40 am
10. H.Hemmelig

    There was an interesting article in the London Evening Standard yesterday by Matthew d’Ancona, speculating that Cameron is preparing to work with the Lib Dems through to 2020, even if the Tories win a small majority in 2015.

    Cameron is said to prefer to govern in coalition with a large majority than as a single party with a small majority – specifically he is said to be haunted by the experience of the Major government which was regularly held to ransom by oddball backbenchers due to its small and eventually non-existant parliamentary majority.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 10:46 am
11. Joe James B

    Conservatives didn’t do as well as we should have done in 2010
    and I think the debates were a factor in that,
    although I do think the LDs were heading for about 20% once the expenses scandal broke in 2009 (even though they were implicated aswell).

    But I think Cameron and Osborne did play the Brown bounce skillfully in 2007 and thought quick on their feet to prevent what could have been a disaster.
    The Tory share would have increased in 2007 but Labour might have increased aswell, with a few Tory seats gained in 2005 lost.

    That was prevented.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 11:11 am
12. LBernard

    I think his head would be on the chopping block if he done that HH.

    Shaun – You have got to remember that although you and me may prefer a ring wing populist government (many on here know how much I have moaned about the 2010 GE not being fought on a right wing platform from a Conservative point of view) most people in the country want a leader who is somewhere in the middle whether we like it or not. Cameron fills this position perfectly. He is not hard right wing although I do think that he is more to the right than he is choosing to let on at the moment and he is not too left. Although I am not a big supporter of policies concerning the environment and climate change I understand that in places like Richmond Park this helped us win the seat.

    Whether you want to admit it or not Cameron has helped the Tories pick up more supporters up and down the country. In 2015 if the time is right then I imagine that we will start to hear of more rightest policies rather than the half hearted attempts we seem to hear today.

    The days of 1980s politics are over and demographics in certain places have shifted against the Tories far quicker than demographics benefitting the party so we will never win a large number of urban seats again so I found it odd that so much emphasis was placed on winning such seats but I dont think that allows a call for Cameron to go.

    Tim J is right….a traditional right wing leader like Davis would have made right wing folk like me happy but would not have won over the majority of the electorate.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 11:35 am
13. H.Hemmelig

    “Tim J is right….a traditional right wing leader like Davis would have made right wing folk like me happy but would not have won over the majority of the electorate.”

    Exactly, which would have led to either a majority or minority Labour government. Therefore right wing people like you would have been less happy than you are now….at least today you are getting some of the things you want, much more than you would get under a continued Labour government.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 12:32 pm
14. Chris K

    Really interesting discussion (on a number of levels). I also noted Anthony’s point about the point of the site so I’ll try and keep this neutral……

    Re HH’s point about the story in the London Standard – I think the problem with that is that whilst 1) it perhaps makes sense from a pragmatic ‘working majority’ point of view, and 2) I’m not aware of any constitutional convention that prevents two parties forming a voluntary coalition (like in 1940) it somehow doesn’t feel democratic?

    I’ve been bored to tears by the number of halfwits, from all parties, that have complained about the current coalition not having a legitimate mandate as no-one voted for it (not on this site I should add!).

    But the fact is, the coalition exists precisely because no-one voted for it! If one party had won, then they’d be in government – simple stuff…..! (As an aside, I do feel sympathy for the Lib Dems because I honestly can’t see what they were supposed to do given the circumstances they found themselves in).

    But, forming a coalition out of necessity is completely different from actually campaigning as a coalition – how would voters who passionately want a pure Tory government or a pure Lib Dem government feel about that? Would they not feel that their vote was diluted in some way? I suppose the counter-argument would be that plenty of countries function perfectly well with almost permanent coalitions, and voters seem to cope…..but still, I’m not sure we’re used to it here?

    And from a more pragmatic point of view, why would either Cameron or Clegg want to do it?

    If there is any hint that, come what may, after the 2015 election they’ll continue to work together, surely they’re making life difficult for themselves – some Lib Dem voters are already sure to vote Labour in 2015, and even those LD voters who can live with the coalition now are only doing it on a pragmatic, short-term basis – surely many of these would vote Labour if a vote for the Lib Dems almost certainly meant a Tory-dominated government?

    Therefore, the LD’s might (and I stress ‘might’) get hammered? And surely, although less dramatic, the Tories would have a finely balanced decision to make? Would they gain more through an implicit agreement than they would through striving for a sole majority?

    I’d have thought (very simplistically!) that an implicit coalition would make it more likely that Cons would take seats off the LD’s in the south – but in some three-way marginals (appreciating that there aren’t that many) they would become more vulnerable to Labour as Lib-Dem voters switching to Labour would probably outweight LD’s switching to the Tories?

    And, whilst I suspect that for a number of reasons the UKIP vote will fall at the next election, would the Tories not risk alienating those to the right of the party, who would feel that actively favouring a coaltiion compromises their principles? Therefore UKIP could be the only natural home to those voters (assuming that they actually do vote rather than stay at home) which again could cost the Tories in straight Lab/Con margainal consituencies across the country?

    Sorry – I’m at work so the above is not structured and is rather a stream of consciousness……..but interested in any thoughts anyone might have.

    One final word on Cameron – I think Tory and a number of others are spot on, he’s safe for now and I personally continue to think there wasn’t much more he could do in 2010. I also agree with those who say that there is simply no feasible alternative right now……although I have to say that I think the electoral appeal of David Davis is maybe underestimated due to his ‘right wing’ credentials. He looks, and sounds, like a ‘normal bloke’ which may appeal more widely than some imagine. I can’t see it happening now, and he is also in his early 60′s which means that time has probably already run out for him.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 12:45 pm
15. Shaun Bennett

    “Fixed Term Parliaments is a masterstroke too. Not only is it democratic”…

    eh?

    “but it’s also something which is difficult to undo. No party could possibly say “Let’s give the Prime Minister back the power to call elections.””

    Indeed. So they won’t do that. It will be quietly removed once a party has the majority to do it. Fixed term parliaments is a measure whose time may well be limited.

    “AW’s description at the top indicates where Cameron went wrong. He tried to appeal to the metropolitan and public sector middle classes by being progressive – ‘vote blue go green”

    I don’t really mind that Cameron has made mistakes and got the strategy wrong initially. Its that he KEEPS getting it wrong because he simply cannot get it into his head that that it IS wrong. That’s the problem I have.

    “I think weve shook off the nasty image quite well for swing voters”

    I’m not sure what the ‘nasty image’ is or how you combat it. Seems to me the only thing we’ve shaken off with all of Cameron’s ‘modernisation’ (another nonsense word) is our ability to actually win elections.

    The ‘nasty’ bit is a self-denying ordinance isn’t it. If WE keep going around saying how nasty we all used to be and how all the Conservative values we used to espouse were wrong, why on earth should anybody vote for us?

    And its nonsense anyway. Cameron will do more to proove to people that the party IS nasty by trying to cut their working rights and holiday entitlements than he will ever counter the charge by talking about ‘gay rights’ and the environment. But he doesn’t mind looking ‘nasty’ on that one does he? So this argument is all rubbish to justify not pursuing a Conservative agenda in other areas.

    “Whether you want to admit it or not Cameron has helped the Tories pick up more supporters up and down the country”

    Membership down to the lowest ever and falling. Share of the vote in 2010 barely up on what Major, Hague and Howard achieved in the 3 previous elections; lowest share of the vote a Tory government has ever been elected upon. never mind. Carry on.

    “In 2015 if the time is right then I imagine that we will start to hear of more rightest policies rather than the half hearted attempts we seem to hear today.”

    Can’t see how unless Cameron can be convinced to change his outlook and strategy. Particularly when you cross reference that with H.Hemmlig’s story in the press today that he now may want to carry on working with Lib Dems AFTER the next election. Seems to me a long-term ambition for Lib-Con coalition rather than what the country actually wants and needs. But still, I’d be interested to hear and alternative interpretation.

    “Tim J is right….a traditional right wing leader like Davis would have made right wing folk like me happy but would not have won over the majority of the electorate”

    No. Wrong again I’m afraid. The evidence is very much in favour of a right-wing leader. The problem with Davis is that he’s personally perhaps not up to it.

    And Tim, if I hear that the Tories lost in 2001 and 2005 because they were too right-wing I’m going to scream. I’ve answered that point many many times but people don’t seemt o be understanding me. The tories could NEVER have won in 2001 and 2005. Presumably we were led by an equally right-wing leadership in 1997 when we suffered our worst defeat ever?

    Presumably making the same leap, Steve Norris lost the mayoral election in 2000 and 2004 because he was not right wing enough? That must be why Boris won in 2008? No?

    It really is nonsense to make the argument that the policy directon of the party had anything whatsoever to do with defeat during the Blair Years.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 1:20 pm
16. Shaun Bennett

    Oh can I also add that just as I support FPTP in principle regardless of party advantage, I am also against hung parliaments in principle. They are the worst kind of government and provide the basis for instability and confusion-as we are starting to get now.

    I would have rathered a Labour government with a small majority than a hung parliament. So I have to dispute Tim’s presumption on that.

    Except now we have the double-whammy. A nightmare scenario of a hung parliament AND a fixed term parliaments bill that means it can’t be ended early by an election. The Lib Dems have played a blinder and Cameron has walked into their trap. That takes strategic incompetance of the really highest order not to have seen that one coming.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 1:26 pm
17. Tim Jones

    ‘No. Wrong again I’m afraid. The evidence is very much in favour of a right-wing leader.’

    You keep repeating the line that evidence shows that a more right-wing Tory leader than Cameron would have won a majority without producing a shred of evidence to back it up

    I suspect there isn’t any because it’s a completely false claim

    February 2nd, 2012 at 1:28 pm
18. H.Hemmelig

    Shaun

    “I would have rathered a Labour government with a small majority than a hung parliament. So I have to dispute Tim’s presumption on that.”

    That’s crazy.

    It’s obvious there are numerous areas of policy where you disagree with the government.

    Nevertheless, as a conservative you must surely approve of the coalition’s strenuous efforts to get the deficit down and to reduce public spending, which is the most important challenge facing our country today. Specifically, how could a conservative not approve of a benefits cap and reforms to public sector pensions. These are important reforms that Labour would not have attempted in a million years; nor would they have been able to make necessary spending cuts across the board due to the vested interests of the unions and their voters.

    I cannot understand the mentality that because you can’t have everything, you would prefer to have nothing.

    I am in no doubt that David Cameron’s election in 2010 saved the UK from a complete financial meltdown. We should all be grateful to him for that.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 1:51 pm
19. Tory

    I am very much with Tim J, H Hemmelig, L Bernard and Chris K on this issue.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 1:58 pm
20. A Cairns

    The tories could have maybe won an extra 10 seats off Labour (such as Edgbaston, Eltham, Hampstead Itchen, Wirral S, Bolton W etc) had they run a slightly better campaign and an extra 2% but more than 320 seats was probably not possible.

    The question is now what happens if the tories win with around 280/600 seats in 2015.
    Would Cameron go for a minority gvt and would it be vulnerable to collapse around 2017/18?

    February 2nd, 2012 at 2:03 pm
21. Joe James B

    I have to agree with HH Shaun.
    I can’t stand the Lib Dems and I hope a the next election we pick up another 3% or so
    but the idea that you’d prefer to have Gordon Brown in power now doesn’t bear thinking about.
    Perhaps you don’t actually realise how close they came to bankrupting this country for ever,
    despite your views.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 2:07 pm
22. LBernard

    While I like listening to everybodys views I have to say Shaun does not seem to understand that a right wing candidate in 2010 would not have gone down so well with the electorate.

    Shaun is right in stating that 2001 and 2005 were not the times to be throwing right wing policies out as many peple in the UK were not particularly concerned with such policies.

    As a fairly right wing Tory it was music to my ears to hear about the benefits cap, public sector pension cuts and so on and would never in a million years rather a Labour government as HH has pointed out.

    I would be interested to know who Shaun would prefer in charge rather than Cameron?

    February 2nd, 2012 at 2:24 pm
23. Joe

    Seconded Lbernard – This government is taking excellent steps with fiscal, thatcherite conservatism, while ignoring social conservatism, which would be deeply unpopular.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 2:43 pm
24. Tory

    Yes, I agree. The government is doing recognisably Conservative things in the areas of education, welfare, and fiscal policy. As a Conservative voter, I would rather have this Coalition than a Labour-led administration.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 3:08 pm
25. Tim Jones

    ‘And Tim, if I hear that the Tories lost in 2001 and 2005 because they were too right-wing I’m going to scream. I’ve answered that point many many times but people don’t seemt o be understanding me.’

    I’m not understanding you because you are giving your opinion and presenting it as fact.

    ‘The tories could NEVER have won in 2001 and 2005.’

    2001 you’re right – but they still would have done much better had they not had the uncharismatic and yes right-wing William Hague as leader.

    And in 2005 they certainly would have been in a position to challenge Labour had they not first elected IDS as leader and then replaced him by the equally unpopular (at least in the eyes of the public) and only slightly more effective Michael Howard

    You seem to forget that Tony Blair wasn’t exactly popular in 2005 because of the Iraq war. That’s partly why the Lib Dems did so well under Kennedy – hardly a plausible PM for all of his likeable qualities.

    Had the Tories offered some constructive criticism of the way Blair was too willing to be George W Bush’s poodle – instead of blindly backing him in everything he did – they could have easily done better in 2005.

    Labour really were there for the taking and had they elected either Clarke or Portillo in 2001, I think they would have certainly would have bettered their performance – which wasn’t that bad consdering they got more votes than Labour in England

    February 2nd, 2012 at 3:31 pm
26. LBernard

    Tim talks a lot of sense in that post.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 3:35 pm
27. Tory

    I agree, Tim. Had Portillo won the 2001 leadership contest, recent political history may well have been different. Portillo’s chief virtue was that he combined modernising instincts with sufficient Euroscepticism, a blend which could have allowed the Conservatives to broaden its support while maintaining party unity. Blair would still have won in 2005 but I suspect his majority would have been somewhat lower. This would have made 2010 less of an uphill climb for the Conservatives.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 3:41 pm
28. Shaun Bennett

    Do you know, I almost wish the party had elected Clarke in 1997 gone on to a landslide defeat in 2001 (as they would), elected Portillo in 2001, gone one to another landslide defeat in 2005 (which they would) and then by the time we could actually be in with a chance of winning an election, we would no longer have these people going on and on about it was the right-wing policies of Hague, IDS and Howard that caused the defeats in the first place.

    “I’m not understanding you because you are giving your opinion and presenting it as fact”

    Heaven forbid I should point out that your counter ‘Facts’ are equally opinion based and lacking in evidence.

    But I have presented evidence on numerous occassions and you have ignored it:
    1) Polls showed in 2010 that voters main concerns included immigration which Cameron resolutely refused to ctalk about.
    2) Polls show that social conservatism including such things as Section 28 IS popular, which is why Blair abolished it without any reference to what the majority wanted, and why gay marriage is still opposed by a majority of people.
    3) Polls show that the things some ministers in this government are doing (benefit caps, immigration numbers, spending restraint, education reform etc) are popular, so we should have based the campaign on those things instead of Camerons ‘night before the manifesto launch’ waffle about the ‘big society’.
    4) decades of liberal elite media hostility has still produced a land in which polls still show a majority or 50% support for capital punishment. The real figure including people that won’t tell the pollsters what they really think would be higher.
    5) Cameron jumped on the enviornmental bandwagon accepting the fuel and energy prices will have to rise “to tackle climate change” at PRECISELY the time in which the public turned against that message.

    Quite honestly, this is a centre-right country and the centre is fursther to the right than almost anyone on here would be comfortable admitting. So thats the first part of why a more right-wing leader would do better.

    Secondly, as I said earlier, if you are saying that the Tories lost in 2001 and 2005 because of the right-wing policies, then you have to explain why the defeat was even greater in 1997 under Major, Clarke and Heseltine when the policies were entirely different-and I suspect more in keeping with what H.Hemmelig and Tim and others would like to see today.

    You have to explain why Norris did so badly on his ‘moderate Tory ticket’ in London mayoral elections in 2000 and 2004 and why Boris won on a more traditional agenda in 2008.

    Those points are enough to be getting on with for now Lets hear those explained away.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 5:24 pm
29. Kieran W

    I agree completely about Portillo. Much as I enjoy the tv programmes about railways he has made since leaving parliament, his political demise was a disaster for the party and the country. I have no doubt the party under him would have outperformed its showing under Howard in 2005.

    To anyone who is under the impression that the Tories would have done better at the last election had they run a more right wing campaign, I recommend the relevant section of Kavanagh & Cowley’s “British General Election of 2010″. It cites a post election survey of voters in marginal seats who considered voting Conservative but didn’t. The most often cited reasons given by people for not backing the Tories were fears that the party was still for the rich and not ordinary people, and that a Tory government would take away benefits such as tax credits or free bus passes for pensioners. Hardly anyone appears to have not voted Tory because the party was insufficiently robust on crime, immigration or the EU.

    No Tory leader could have done anything about the fact that Labour had spent its years in power expanding the public sector and creating a situation where more and more people were in receipt of some sort of benefit from the state in the form of tax credits and free pensioners bus passes, winter fuel payments, tv licences etc. Its hardly surprising that people who feel wholly or partly dependent on the state will choose in the final analysis to vote for the party they see as being the party of the state. I fail to see how a more right wing Tory campaign would have addressed this key problem.

    Those who, like Shaun above, blame Cameron for the Tories failure to win an overall majority need to explain why the party has performed so well since the election. Almost all recent polls have the Tory vote above what it was at the GE. At the only set of local elections we’ve had yet in this parliament the party gained seats and councils. Why is this happening if Cameron’s leadership is such a problem?

    February 2nd, 2012 at 5:29 pm
30. Shaun Bennett

    And in case people accuse me of not answering the question: In the present cabinet, I think that Hague would be an excellent leader if he wanted it. Theresa May could do it with some support.

    I don’t think Osborne would do well because people perceive him as being the same as Cameron.
    And whilst I would like someone like Fox, Davis or Redwood personally, I don’t think they could win an election-and not for the reasons Tim and others would think, they wouldn’t win because of their personal performances and image). Don’t forget that Davis would have been leader in 2005 if he had been a better performer, and I don’t think his failings in that area have changed in the last 6 years.

    So that would be my analysis on the matter.

    And on the question of why I would prefer a small Labour majority than a hung parliament: yes I agree SOME Tory ministers are doing fantastic things on a micro level. But its the big sweeping brush strokes that we are getting wrong.

    And anyway, the positves in areas like education are far outweighed by this government’s constitutional vandalism, its desicration of countryside and coastlines in support of the wind energy confidence trick, its complete failure to address the huge problem of fuel prices and its weakness on european questions.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 5:35 pm
31. Kieran W

    “Polls showed in 2010 that voters main concerns included immigration which Cameron resolutely refused to ctalk about”.

    Again I cite Kavanagh & Cowley who point out that while voters rank immigration highly when asked “what are the most important issues facing the country?”, it ranks much lower when the question is switched to “what are the most important issues facing you and your family?”.

    The suggestion is that the latter consideration is more important than the former in determining how people vote.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 5:36 pm
32. Shaun Bennett

    “Those who, like Shaun above, blame Cameron for the Tories failure to win an overall majority need to explain why the party has performed so well since the election. Almost all recent polls have the Tory vote above what it was at the GE”

    A poll lead gained on the back of the one defining thing Cameron has done since becomming PM-the EU Veto. A policy he was dragged kicking and screaming to having to take by Tory backbenchers and members. A policy he would not otherwise have done if he could have gotten away with it.

    A policy he is now perceived by many to have frittered away and abandoned. You may like to know that the polls released since it was reported he had dumped the veto have shown an increase lead for Labour!

    I’m not the one with the difficult explaining to do Kieran. It is those who refuse to see what is staring them in the face.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 5:40 pm
33. Joe James B

    A lot of this is old hat now.
    2001 was an utterly hopeless election for the Tories – there was still a general fashion for kicking them when they were down,
    and a kind of British fair play that Labour should be given a second, perhaps a third term after 18 years to see what they could do for the country – at least whilst it appeared (appeared I say) that they hadn’t screwed up the economy.

    Ken Clarke could have got some more votes (even though I disagree with him on some important areas), but it wasn’t really until 2005 that we even got a look in.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 5:50 pm
34. Tory

    I think Kieran’s point about Labour’s ‘client state’ is very perceptive. It is probably the key reason why ABC1 support for the Conservatives has stalled at 39% since 1997.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 6:00 pm
35. H.Hemmelig

    We are probably testing Anthony’s patience by dragging this on, so this will be my last post on this subject.

    It is wrong to pretend that there are any easy solutions to the problems faced by the Conservatives in general elections since 1992. It is my view that David Cameron has made a better fist of things than anyone else would have done. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that much of the fundamental problem is demographic and cultural, and that trying to serve up a kind of reheated 1980s Thatcherism to the electorate would be a disaster.

    Shaun has rattled off a list of what he thinks would be popular policies with the British people…..and no doubt on some of those he is dead right, but he is forgetting Bill Clinton’s golden rule “it’s the economy, stupid”. Elections are won and lost primarily on the economy, not on gay marriage or immigration or Europe or capital punishment. As with the Tories in 2001, you can have many policies that are popular with the people, but if you don’t have that economic credibility it makes no difference.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 6:24 pm
36. richard

    “The most often cited reasons given by people for not backing the Tories were fears that the party was still for the rich and not ordinary people”

    In which case having Bullingdon Bertie and his chinless wonders as the Conservative leadership was a bit of a drawback.

    Especially when their big economic idea was cutting inheritance tax.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 7:48 pm
37. richard

    “Again I cite Kavanagh & Cowley who point out that while voters rank immigration highly when asked “what are the most important issues facing the country?”, it ranks much lower when the question is switched to “what are the most important issues facing you and your family?”.”

    And where does increasing overseas aid and husky hugging rate on the ‘most important issues facing you and your family’ scale?

    As HH says economic credibility is vital and Osborne didn’t have it.

    Would anyone here want George Osborne in charge of their personal finances?

    February 2nd, 2012 at 7:52 pm
38. Pete Whitehead

    It was I understand to raise the threshold for inheritance tax rather than to cut the level above the threshold. The level at which inheritance kicked in was around about the price of an average house in parts of London and the South so it was actually really not rich people who were standing to benefit from this but the middle class. I think on this the move was actually popular as well as being right on its own merits. The Etonian stuff you probably have more of a point, although as Douglas Hurd argued back in 1990, it would be harsh if somebody was denied office on the basis of which school they went to.
    I’ve no doubt the perception of the Tories as the party of the rich is a problem for them and one of the reasons I supported David Davis besides policy was because I thought he would be much better at connecting with ‘ordinary’ people

    February 2nd, 2012 at 7:57 pm
39. Tim Jones

    ‘Those who blame Cameron for the Tories failure to win an overall majority need to explain why the party has performed so well since the election. Almost all recent polls have the Tory vote above what it was at the GE. At the only set of local elections we’ve had yet in this parliament the party gained seats and councils. Why is this happening if Cameron’s leadership is such a problem?’

    And in the middle of an economic crisis where a lot of voters are seeing the living standards they’ve become accustomed to beyond their reach

    The full extent of the cuts haven’t yet hit home but we’ve had a few mass strikes – where Cameron has actually taken most of the public with him, painting the public sector strikers, not entirely inaccuratey, as selfish reactionaries wanting to greedily hang on to their gold-plated pensions while the rest of the country suffers

    I can’t imagine any of his recent predecessors pulling that off

    Cameron’s simply a lot more likeable and his upper class credentials (Eton, The Bullingdon club) don’t seem to have been the millstone around his neck that some suspected they might be –

    For a party that has struggled in recent history to be liked, I think they go do a lot worst than Cameron

    That he’s an asset to his party seems beyond doubt

    February 2nd, 2012 at 8:23 pm
40. Kieran W

    The full details of the poll I mentioned above are as follows:

    Most important issues facing the country:

    Economy/credit crunch/jobs/unemployment 70%
    Immigration/asylum 49%
    Crime/law and order/police 42%
    Health/NHS/hospitals 36%

    Most important issues facing you and your family:

    Prices/inflation/cost of living 60%
    Economy/credit crunch/jobs/unemployment 58%
    Pensions/social security/poverty 35%
    Immigration/asylum 20%

    The contrast between responses to the first question and the second is interesting. While people express concern about how crime and immigration effect the country as a whole, they seem less certain that the difficulties faced by the country in those policy areas effect them personally.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 8:35 pm
41. richard

    Pete

    What I said the Conservatives should have proposed was raising the IHT threshold to £1m but increasing IHT to 50% from that point onwards.

    Which would have been a taxation shift from the southern middle classes to the rich.

    Instead it looked like Cameron was trying to give a tax cut to people like himself.

    On the Eton background where Cameron went wrong was surrounding himself with similar people.

    Compare with the variety Labour had before 1997:

    Blair – New Labour appealing beyond Labour’s traditional voters

    Prescott – Old Labour reassuring Labour’s traditional voters

    Brown – Scottish banker type, when Scottish bankers were still respected

    Where Cameron went wrong was the complacency, the belief that they, and they alone, had personal knowledge of what was needed.

    February 2nd, 2012 at 9:04 pm
42. richard

    Kieran

    So few people were interested either generally or personally in overseas aid and the environment.

    So we had a Conservative leadership which looked rich and elitist talking about issues which were of little interest to voters.

    Is it surprising that the voters thought the Conservatives weren’t interested in ordinary people?

    February 2nd, 2012 at 9:07 pm
43. Shaun Bennett

    I agree with H.Hemmlig. Anthony has been very good so far and we’re not really getting very far are we. I’ll make this my closing argument on the matter.

    Having said that, I think it has been generally a good and interesting debate.

    I notice that Tim and friends hasn’t come back and disputed any of the facts as I see them, despite yesterday challenging me to present them.

    I’ll just close by saying that many people on here have defended Cameron’s direction because he’s ‘doing ok at the moment’. I don’t think thats really good enough when its clear to see how things are going to develop in the future. The time is now to ensure that pitfalls are avoided. Its no good asking where it all went wrong once you have fallen down. That is why I raised this question in the first place.

    Regular contributors to the site might remember that I confidently predicted the hung parliament long before 2010. Indeed, I was saying that it would be hung in 2008-09 when the Tories were 20% ahead in the polls. It was very clear then how it was going to go if you just read the signs.

    Similarly in my own local Conservative association my troubles began when I tried to warn them that the course they were on would lead to the party’s wipe out and a huge Labour majority on the city council. It wasn’t a popular message, but I still have to wonder whether things could have been different if it had been heeded (please see the 2010 Stoke city council results to see how that turned out).

    And I find myself in a similar position here. If Cameron turns out to be a fantastic Prime Minister who was leading us on all the time and really will be remembered for doing great Thatcheresque things, then I shall be the first to hold me hands up and admit that I was utterly wrong. I shall be regretful that I never trusted him at the time.

    …but he won’t be will he. In many years to come, people will be wondering where it all went wrong. Barnaby and others will be going on about how the Tory Party used to be so competitive and marvelling at its rapid decline. Many may not be able to believe that the Tory Party could have been reduced to so few seats. And at that point, I hope you remember that crank Shaun Bennett who used to go on about how things have got to be done differently. And perhaps you might just think to yourselves ‘he wasn’t such a crank after all…’

    February 3rd, 2012 at 10:50 am
44. H.Hemmelig

    Shaun

    There will always have to be a mainstream Conservative party to represent the 40% of English voters (and 20% of Welsh) who are to varying degrees right-of-centre. That church is broad enough to include the very different views of you and I.

    In general elections, under FPTP most ordinary voters will not waste their votes on minor parties.

    You are not a crank, but I think your alarmism is not necessary.

    February 3rd, 2012 at 11:15 am

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code *