I'm not sure about the headline on ConservativeHome's latest opinion poll of Conservative Party Members' views. It reads...
ONE THIRD OF TORY MEMBERS ARE DISSATISFIED WITH DAVID CAMERON'S LEADERSHIP
Of course, this means that two thirds ARE happy, but that's not such a good headline I suppose. The other reason it isn't really very newsworthy is the fact that the result of the leadership election a year ago was David Cameron 67%, David Davis 33%. So you could say that very little has changed.
However the other results of the poll are much more interesting. "A full 43% of members think that the party has gone too far in modernising the party and distancing itself from traditional policies. 47% think the pace and extent of change has been about right. 11% want David Cameron to go further." And when asked which other Party was closest to their views, 43% said UKIP."
The Observer reports on the poll HERE and says: "Twelve per cent agreed that the Tories had 'much to learn' from Toynbee. One-quarter had no opinion. But 63 per cent agreed with the statement that Toynbee 'holds left-wing views that have no place in the Conservative Party'. Montgomerie, a former adviser to Iain Duncan Smith, said: 'The idea that relative poverty is an important issue was something that, in my view, was worth raising. But there is clearly a growing sense among some activists that the party's core identity is being sacrificed for eye-catching efforts to appeal to new supporters.'"
53 comments:
I'm quite fed-up of the Cameron Clan referring to established Conservative voters as the 'old guard', and attempting to portray us as a gang of red faced retired Colonels wearing plus-fours and waving a shotgun. I believe that the various polls published during the last few days are at last demonstrating that his leadership qualifications are not at all commensurate with what his boy-band are trying to sell us! Of course, he comes across as a naive ideas man with no substance, for that is what he is and nobody can change it!
Can't see what the big issue is really. They're probably the one third that didn't vote for him anyway. Over 60% did on his platform of change and that's what the party will get whether the old guard/dinosaurs/rightwingers like it or not.
Vienna, Did the hunt end early today ?
Was it party members who voted Cameron in, or was it MPs? I seem to recall that it was Tory MPs - not the rank and file. So that 60% voted for him has no relevance. It was only the denizens of Westminster Village. The rank and file don't like him and wouldn't have voted for him.
Leon opines: "They're probably the one third that didn't vote for him anyway. Over 60% did on his platform of change and that's what the party will get whether the old guard/dinosaurs/rightwingers like it or not."
Well, party members didn't get a vote at all, Leon. I'm a right winger and I don't like it. The "dinosaurs" you refer to are the socialists. They are the walking dead. Tessa Jowell, Patricia Hewitt, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, Tony Blair, John Prescott - the damned.
Verity, you are wrong. Party members voted by 2-1 for Cameron.
43% closer to ukip?
I think that proves how conhome has been taken over by outsiders and are an unrepresentative bunch. As such it's amazing that Cameron gets as high a rating as he does.
Hi,
now that there is no Tory Party in any honorable terms and the remnants are supporting its further demise under the corrupt guidance to destruction by Vapid CommieRon and his very small clique, who have sold out on principle, vision, morality, integrity that were so much Tory values worth voting for>
Since ALL the Tories currently refuse to vote is there not a suitable case for starting a Tory Party as there are some 8-10,000,000 desperately looking for a Tory Party with values, principles, aims of lower taxation and less governance, integrity and liberty that are denied by the 4 main Parties where you can not put a cigarrette paper between their ambitions and their EU speak.
The Newly formed Tory Party would surely be elected on patriotism, honest social welfare and concern for minorities alone.
Regards,
Greg L-W.
I am a member of the party but only communicate with it, by post, when they want some money. I have not met another party member, as far as I know. I voted for DC because I thought he could win. I do not believe his opponents are "red faced retired colonels". Judging by posters on other sites they seem mostly to be vile, foul mouthed, devil take the hindmost, out for themselves libertarians. I believe that conservative colonels actually know that "the colonel's lady and Rosie O'Grady are sisters under the skin".
I think David Cameron should remember that a house will only last if it is built on solid foundations. I have no problem in modernising the party but his attitude to the members is high handed and insulting at times. He needs to communicate and discuss with members instead of just making unpleasant comments. If he thinks he is bigger than the party he needs to think again. I will not reduce my principals just win an election. I dont want to win at any price that undermines ty beliefs in Tory ideals.
He only got in as the right vote was split between Davies and Fox.
Someone should remind him of this before its to late.
Of course, this means that two thirds ARE happy
No it doesnt , it probably means the other 2/3 are too bored and despondent to care.
Stop being so positive Tory boy you are not going to govern whislst that Cameron is "leader"
re Johnny Norfolk. I too disagree with cutting down on headmasters.
Thank you, Iain. I stand corrected. I hadn't realised the members had a vote.
"devil take the hindmost, out for themselves libertarians"
And damn proud of it. Though of course, in pursuing a society based on individual rights to life, liberty, and property, we not only benefit ourselves but the wider populace.
But it says a great deal that the only reason FR voted for 'Call Me Dave' Dave was that 'I thought he could win'. Not because of what he believes or stands for; not because he is a man of principle; nor because he will improve life in this blessed isle.
Sod ideas or defending what is right; all that matters is grabbing power. And in espousing that grubby little idea, FR perfectly sums up Cameron and the party he wishes to lead.
I voted for Cameron in the leadership election, unlike you Iain. But the relative poverty/Toynbee stuff of the last few weeks has me really spooked. I voted as being dissatisfied with Cameron ( for the first time ).
Its meant as a shot across the bows. He'd better listen - because UKIP is starting to look better every day.
David Cameron has done great things for the party and created a far better order of priorities. But the trianglation rubbish has to stop. I'm intrested in politics for the good of the country - not the party. If the party stops supporting that are good for my country I will leave it, and support someone else. (I have voted Conservative at every election for nearly 22 years and been a party member for long periods).
assuming we win.. is it technically possible for the party to replace him with someone else? It would not be the best thing morally speaking but is it possible to do so?
Only people can have principles. A political party is an abstract, artificial construct designed to enable those people, holding roughly the same principles, to gain power in order to apply them. It is not dishonourable, therefore, for a party leader to make the political compromises needed to get elected.
In the case of the UK there may be eight million conservative voters like lerxst, but there are about 16 million others who would not tolerate those views.
It's results like these that probably inspired the "Back me or sack me" headline in the ST today. Scare off the dissenters with thoughts of yet another leadership election with the MSM salivating over 'tory splits'.
Mind you, there's always the possibility that someone might take him at his word. That'd be fun. Interesting too that since he got the leadership there have been strong suggestions from the top that in future the bog-ordinary member should be excluded in participating in future party elections. I wonder why? Perhaps because most of them wouldn't vote for him again now that he's shown his true colours?
When a recent poll said that two-thirds of those asked were happy with the NHS and Nanny Hewett said how pleased she was with that, numerous people pointed out that that meant that a third were NOT happy and that was nothing for her to boast about.
Nw here we have a poll of Tories (not the whole electorate--just Tories) that gives an almost identical answer.
Well I'm sorry, but Windmill Dave has no more reason to be pleased about this than Nanny Hewett has about the NHS.
He stands on the brink of the same sort of failure now, I believe, as William Hague had. In his day, Hague's attempt to modernise the party faltered as support fell away (happening for Tosser now, except that it's hidden by the unpopularity of Blair in terminal decline--a condition that will not last)
And then there are stupid gimmicks.
In Hague's case it was probably the Notting Hill Carnival and the water ride at Chessington; now it's difficult to know where to begin, but hugging hoodies, cycling with a car following you, windmills, Polly T, inner tossers.... it's a long list.
Yes, just one more stupid gimmick could be about enough.
And, yes, I know I've said it before, but he has also made the following strategic errors:
(1) Capturing the central ground is vital, but that is not to be confused with capitulating to the other side's programme.
(2) Promising to emulate key aspects of the government's policies at the start of one's term may help victory--when the policies are good. When they are bad, emulation is just plain stupid.
(3) An opposition that mimics the government's policies serves no purpose--except, in Lenin's phrase, to be a 'useful fool'. Why vote for a fake, when the real thing is also available?
It would actually be better for such an opposition to cease to exist, so that it can be replaced with one that understands what its job really is supposed to be.
It is the way he has not merely capitulated entirely to the other side's ideology but has made such a virtue of it that so infuriates me. As a former Conservative voter I am repelled by Cameron's chirpy, arrogant rejection of every single principle for which I voted at the last election, and his apparent enthusiasm for the opinions of people like Toynbee, views which have no place in any coherent Conservative philosophy. Cameron claims that There Is No Alternative. Oh yes there is, Tosser. It's called integrity, something to do with coherence and sticking to principles, but you wouldn't recognise it.
Perhaps those Party members who voted for Cameron 2:1 over Davis were seduced by emotion at the Boy Wonder's glistening fresh-faced newness, polished elocution and apparent sincerity. MPs wanted the experienced and capable Davis.
Tejus Ramakrishnan: it's not just technically possible. It's essential.
I am going to start a new website devoted to the greatness of Lady Di and Cameron - "Di and Dave". I expect you all to link onto it and really build it up into a top blog.
Very disappointed in the whole thrust of the tory dairy entries regarding David Cameron's first year.
Talk about clutching at bad news in the face of a larger dose of good news!
The disingenuous headlines and rather bizarre interpretation of both the ICM and ConHom polls undermined some of the very arguments Tim tried to put forward.
I just could not take his opinions as "fair commentary".
Even people who are praying for the wheels to come of the Cameron band wagon find it slightly unfair!
When I want an open, honest and fair interpretation of Cameron's progress or decline I visit PB.com. Mike Smithson tells it how it is without a spin cycle!
This tory would rather risk their money on the back of a Libdems assessment than ConHom's.
Well there you are Iain , conservative folk think Cameron is a "Jerry Adams"
Chances are wherever YOU wash up as a candidate you will get in , you are a conservative with a good tale to tell and credibility ,you will win because conservatives will recognise kin.
Dont expect Cameron to pull a Blair or Thatcher where the brand swept a load on nonentities into power , until you ditch him you have no chance of government.
ptba said:
"Perhaps those Party members who voted for Cameron 2:1 over Davis were seduced by emotion at the Boy Wonder's glistening fresh-faced newness, polished elocution and apparent sincerity. MPs wanted the experienced and capable Davis."
No. Most of us could see that DD was an electoral liability and had no leadership qualities. Sometimes you have to go with the one who looks like the best leader and hope that the policies follow. Sadly with DC, this has not happened; the policies are probably worse than the DD lack of leadership.
Iain, you write: "Of course, this means that two thirds ARE happy, but that's not such a good headline I suppose. The other reason it isn't really very newsworthy is the fact that the result of the leadership election a year ago was David Cameron 67%, David Davis 33%. So you could say that very little has changed."
I don't think that's right. The 32.4% who voted for DD didn't necessarily do so because they disapproved of DC but because they preferred DD. The 32% now dissatisfied with DC is a change over the last 12 months. When ConservativeHome started polling in January we found that just 16% were dissatisfied. Unhappiness levels have doubled, therefore.
The headline I chose is also entirely defensible. You would expect most Tory members to be satisfied with a leader who presides over a poll lead. The fact that 32% are unhappy is much more interesting - and The Daily Mail appears to agree as their online site has chosen an almost identical headline.
It wasn't just his fresh and glistening face, the windmill, the staggeringly stupid, condescending trip to an ice floe in Norway, hug a hoodie, chocolate oranges, etc., but he touted that disabled kid around magazine and feature editors looking for publicity to make him look sympathetic to the voters. After the election, the kid went away somewhere, I guess, as we didn't see him any more.
f.r. I think the idea of a Di And Dave website is perfectly lovely. But should it not be Di 'N' Dave? What sort of items will you be putting up?
What does it really matter ? From the point of view of voters who are thoroughly pig sick of politicians sui generis, the antics of David Cameron are just a distraction.
The only real issue is who can replace the current pirates who are running aground and anything that looks like this crew is not really an option for change.
In most of the United Kingdom the Conservative Party is an exotic Southern bloom which does not flower in the more acidic soils of the Northern kingdom and no amount of genetic moficiation seems likely to render it palatable before any impending election.
I should think emigration is the option considered by those who regret its omission from the ballot paper. I don't really care about Cameron, he is an irrelevance.
With so many of your members being positive about
"the increasingly obsessed and deluded UKIPHome"
makes this comment of yours from Saturday look a bit sick doesn't it Iain
Oh dear. Your posters are now interchangeable with ConHome Jeramiahs. They're a bunch of losers. They don't want to win. Or attempt to win. The weight of expectation is too much to bear.
To get back to your own post. Yes, typical ConHome headlines today.
"Third of Tories dissatisfied with Cameron".
"ICM give Cameron a 9% lead, but suggests Tories are focussing on the wrong issues".
Talk about a glass half empty! I can imagine the Tories winning the next election and ConHome proclaiming,"Tories in, but problems loom as Cameron fails to convince voters in Scotland and the North East."
Many visitors to the ConHome site think it's an official, authoritive Conservative website, when it's no more than a well-organised ego trip for its founder Tim Montgomerie, a dreary little fart who, in open competition, couldn't get elected to a village fete committee.
Re Cameron: he made it quite clear a year ago that his first priority was to change the party's image and then would follow up with Conservative policies which would be actually considered by more sympathetic electorate. I think he's largely on course. I think he deserves more support.
Cameron could maintain traditional voters and attract new voters by upholding social and economic libertarianism.
On a different note Iain, the archive of last Wednesday's vox politics only allows me to watch a few minutes (with some very "bumpy" streaming) before cutting out. Anybody else having this issue?
"43% closer to ukip?"
Seeing as UKIP are basically Thatcherite Tories who want to leave the EU this is hardly surprising.
The Di 'N' Dave website is an instant winner. All those who love to emote when feeling close to Very Significant People will flock to it. Hello! magazine will come pounding on f.r.'s door. He can't lose.
Suggested feature: Samantha: "How The NHS Helps Me Cope with Dave".
Vote UKIP. You get ideals, we get government. Just like the last 10 years!
Plus, if enough of you split, we don't have to triangulate to the filth that write the Mail and Express.
Everyone's a winner!
f.r. Suggested headline: "Dave swears to pick up landmines where Diana left off." Well, not pick up, actually because, y' know, you get blown up that way. But Dave swears to devote himself to people who live in relative landmine poverty.
"Samantha says: 'No way is Dave getting anywhere near that Heather Mills tart. We do not have Macca's type of money so why doesn't she go away and find herself a rich Saudi? Surely she still has some telephone numbers from the old days? I'll bet she can't even make a Linda McCartney vegetarian sausage,which Dave is devoted to. He is so caring."
what if cameron does turn out to be a chameleon? perhaps we should not make hasty comments till the race has been run.. what if cameron goes against what he has said.. we must always consider that it is implausible but definitely not impossible.
Iain,
Fwiw, everybody I know detests Cameron: lefties and normal people alike.
Of the natural Conservative voters I know (not members), most preferred Davies at the election, but were willing to give Cam the benefit.
NONE of them will vote Conservative at any election in the near future.
ALL of them would emigrate if we realistically could.
Whilst I understand your position, the rest of us feel terribly let down.
Personally, UKIP will get my vote (a previously "lifelong" Labour voter).
Conservatives will lose the next election. Tragic for all of us, and the country as a whole.
ramakrishnan - try to say something interesting, there's a good chap. This is a blog, not a security blanket.
Vote Blue go Green with anger.....and turn purple!
I'm a life long Lib dem who's lost faith in the LDs - largely because of their lurch to the left and love of Europe. I'm centre - to centre right. I recently joined Cameron's Party because I saw him as that rare thing, a politician who can be trusted and who cares about our civil liberties. As an added bonus, I like many, though not all, of Cameron's policy ideas and was convinced he would beat New Labour/Brown at the next election.
Recently, however, I've become concerned about the influence of Cameron's spin doctors and the direction they're leading him in. The existence of this huge PR and spin doctored party machine feels to me antithetical to the values which made me join Cameron's party.
I can see the spin doctor influence in the Tosser video and Toynbee business which made me cringe with embarrassment.
I'm no fan of the Tory Old Guard, however, I'm offended by the Cameron camp's statements that they should be driven away to UKIP or the BNP. I know two of the old guard and, ridiculous as they are on some issues, they are old style Tories in their bones, not racists or BNP types. I wonder if their real offence is that they're in their 60s? Who will the spin doctors want to drive out next - all those of 50 and over?
Well that's me out then. And how does Cameron hope to win the next election if allows his spin doctors to drives a third of his core supporters away?
what if cameron does turn out to be a chameleon? perhaps we should not make hasty comments till the race has been run.. what if cameron goes against what he has said.
Blair did............and look how happy the country is now !
The traditional Conservatives are continually being reprimanded by Mr Cameron that change is necessary for success.Perhaps not as I reckon the 32% despair at the move to "anything gives what goes" principle.
Thousands of conservatives have walked away into a political void- upset about preferences of the A list,Tickings off by CCHQ eg Falmouth @ Cambourne and more recently Westmoreland,and loyalty disgraces such as Plymouth Sutton and Stevenage.Wishy Washy mood politics is an anathema to a largelel as yet uninterested membership.
Truly the Conservative Party even today can be regarded as THE NASTY PARTY to its own supporters.
A few misconceptions knocking about here. Firstly, anyone looking at the ConHome graph will note that this month's result marks a step change - so it is a story. The fact that Greg Clarke's association's email inbox is full tells you all you need to know.
And using some sort of Internet Chinese Whisper the message 43% of Tories are close to UKIP has become a line. Remember, this followed the question "when asked which other Party was closest to their views". Why would this be surprising? Which other party is a reasonable second choice?
The proof of the pudding comes with the polices. Until then it's all 'direction' and theory without any real meaning.
Until we know what Cameron is actually for and what he will actually do it's only spin and sabre rattling on both sides.
Being perfectly frank, I've never come across a politician, other than Prescott, that has done so much damage to a party in such a short period of time. Providing ammunition for the opposition to ridicule and the press to point fun at, is not what the LEADER of the Conservative Party should be doing. Indeed, his advisers must also be culpable and it is extremely worrying that just one year into his tenure he is still making king sized gaffs that can only heap more pain on all of us, scuppering Conservative chances in the process.
The trouble is that he is just like Blair, definitely a clone, but he really doesn't have the authority of a leader. I get the distinct impression that the Conservative Party have been hijacked in the same way that Labour was "acquired" by New Labour. Too many people can now see the writing on the wall and even worse - nobody is listening!
...and for Crossfire's benefit, Tally Ho! No foxes here, so I took my aged boxer for a walk instead!
As a lifelong Labour voter I'm delighted that you guys haven't yet got over your lust for infighting. Just when the party's about stable, you have to go rocking to boat again because you're bored.
Truth is that "NuCons" under Cameron would win the election if you stopped spitting at each other and got on with it. As you won't, it's going to be Brown all the way.
Doomed!!!! y'r alllll DOOOMED!!!
Two thirds of the party membership means what, exactly? All parties have falling memberships; as a percentage of the electorate they are insignificant. And it is that electorate that decides who will be the next PM.
Darfur Dave has gambled that he can hold on to his right flank while gaining on the left by aping many of the enemy's centre left policies. I suspect that his gamble will fail for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, there is a potential new home for disenchanted tories. UKIP may not yet have managed to get its act together, but with some decent leadership and good pr that could change very rapidly. Even without UKIP many conservatives may find themselves unable to vote for a party they see as the very antithesis of that in which they beleive.
Secondly, traditional Labour and LibDem supporters will always see the Conservatives as the party of Mrs Thatcher no matter how much Dave tries to modernise it. Quite franky they'd rather sell their children into white slavery than ever vote Tory.
So that just leaves the floating voters. And it is here I suspect Cameron is trying to collect more votes than he loses from his right. But by making the party virtually indistinguishable from its opponents he has left very little for the floating voters to choose from. Getting their votes may well come down to random chance.
This is not a policy that guarantees success. Indeed I'd say it is a policy designed by people who seem to expect to walk into office without being prepared to do the real hard work of formulating proper conservative policies and then going out and selling them to the electorate.
Could it be down to the fact that Conservative Home is actually run by a more right wing Duncan Smithite element?
Spin it all you like, 1/3rd of members is not good.
It's hardly surprising that Nigel Farage is sending flowers to Cameron.
I've just been reading an article in the Telegraph on line, that even if it's half true is a total disgrace which will pour more shit on Cameron - and he deserves it!
The article highlights the role of one Steve Hilton, 38, who is paid a reputed £270,000 by CCO, the biggest salary ever paid to a party official, for his advice about selling the Dave Cameron idea to the masses. Yes folks, just like Blair, he recruits his old muckers from university to help him on his way. This is the guy who brought us "Hug a Hoodie", "Tough Love" and all the rest of the crap. (Must be a relative of the guy that sold the king his new clothes!.
It's completely unbelievable that at a time when most political parties are up to their eyes in debt, that we should finance fanciful and expensive PR people whose value is extremely questionable judging by the results so far. We now have Cameron producing videos warning us about debt and here he is employing another Oxford waster to sink the party over its head in the mire.
I think that this is the end for me with this tosser. Now I Know he's lost it!
I wish people (Sorry Ian, i actually mean you), would stop using the term 'a curate's egg' to mean 'a mixed bag', or something similar. It simply doesn't mean that. Ask du Maurier. Go on, dig him up and ask... :S
vienna - who is this Steve Hilton guy anyway? I think you should put on your best posh frock, grab a couple of bottles of champers and do some, er.. research...
At a local and national level UKIP are an irrelevance. There organisation is best described as patchy and shambolic.
Consider an organisation whose membership has dropped from 29,000 to little over 16,000 in a year. Whose policy is to attack cheap foreign labour coming into Britian but whose former leader employs cheap foreign labour. Where people donating to the recent Bromley by election found their donations being paid onto and MEPs private credit card! Where they run a call centre in Ashford where every £1 donated by members of the public – 85p is swallowed in ‘expenses’ so UKIP end up with 15p. Where they were given £180,000 of EU funds to run a 2 million signature petition last year – printed the petition forms the wrong size so you couldn’t write your name and then quietly dropped the petition and hope nobody noticed the waste of £thousands! Where a third of the National Executive Committee resigns and whole constituency branches have resigned.
At a local Council level UKIP rarely stand candidates and where they do bang on about Europe and have no fixed policies. I recall a recent Scottish local council election where UKIP got a mere 4 votes.
At a national level UKIP appear completely obsessed about which direction the Conservatives are going. Rather than promote themselves and UKIP policies they would rather bang on about Cameroon and Conservative policies. The charge that UKIP have been taken over by a bitter bunch of ex tories who use the party as nothing more than a tory party pressure group in order to change policies and direction of the Conservatives is starting to ring true.
At a European level is where UKIP will do good – at the next European Parliament Elections where voting UKIP will actually count. With our first past the post system voting for UKIP in local or general elections is a wasted vote and will allow Labour or the Liberal Democrats to win.
Post a Comment