When will voters stop hating the Tories?
July 16th, 2005
-
Has the party moved on since Theresa May’s “nasty party” judgement?
At the 2002 Tory party conference the then Chair, Theresa May, stunned delegates by telling them that..There’s a way to go before we can return to government. There’s a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies, You know what some people call us: the nasty party”
Nearly three years on from that speech the Cheadle by-election on Thursday demonstrated that her diagnosis is still valid. For the reason why the party failed to make inroads in the Lib Dem position is that a large proportion of Cheadle’s voters were prepared to switch their allegiance in order to prevent the Tories winning.
The voting figures are striking because in the past three elections in Cheadle the aggregate Labour/Lib Dem vote hardly changed. What has blocked the Tories and made this into a safe Lib Dem seat has been how that proportion has split.
2001 General Election: Labour 14% Lib Dems 42.4% 2005 General Election: Labour 8.8% Lib Dems 48.9% 2005 By-election: Labour 4.6% Lib Dems 52.2%
The Lib Dems by-election main message followed precisely the same principle as Tony Blair’s General Election campaign by making “stopping the Tories” the objective. It worked on May 5th and again this week because so many electors out there hate the party.
-
For it’s not the level of support the party enjoys the matters - it’s the negative proportion and how they use their votes. And the hard reality is that until the Tories can make themselve liked again they have no chance of returning to office.
In the next two months the Tories will choose Michael Howard’s successor and there’s little doubt that the Cheadle failure will play a big part in the decision. David Davis continues to be the heavy odds-on favourite. Only time will tell whether the by-election failure will affect that?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I think when there is enough distance from the Maggie years of the 80’s.
So I am thinking after the 2009 General elections, it would have been 30 years since Maggie came to over and almost 20 when she left. Plus by that time people would have grown tied of New Labour.
i think cheadle has to be in favour of cameron
2. Agreed if they have any sense, but do they have any Sense?
It was Andrew Rawnsley who said that the Tories will not start to recover until after Mrs Thatcher has died which is pretty strong words, but I do think that until her presence is not felt (and to be honest it is less and less, for obvious reasons she does not comment on many things nowadays), Conservatives are looking backwards not forwards.
BTW, Matthew Parris (who is fab), backs Mr Cameron:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1695736,00.html
Talking about nasty things (the Cheadle leaflets), according to The Telegraph some tories MPs refused to deliver the leaflets.
For the tories here who were there, any truth in this report?
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/16/dl1601.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/16/ixopinion.html
I think this is largely right, though it works more completely in LibDem seats, since more Labour voters are willing to lend their votes to stop the Tories than vice versa - at least at the moment, mainly because of Iraq. Certainly it’s most of what happened in Broxtowe. In 1987, the Tories had 54%, and Lab and LD 24% and 22% each. In 1992, my predecessor won the anti-Labour argument and not much else changed, so the result was Con 51, Lab 35, LD 14. I won it in 1997 on a straight 5% swing (37/47/12) and gained further in 2001 (37/49/15). The result in 2005 was Con 37, Lab 42, LD 16. So the non-Tory vote has risen by 12% since 1987 but there has also been an enduring 6% LD-Lab swing despite Iraq. Moreover, lots of voters have told me since the election that they thought I was safe so they voted LD or Green (1.8%) this time in protest over Iraq, but would be back next time. The LD vote will never collapse like Labour’s in Cheadle but either LibDems have to dislike Labour more than the Tories (which would be odd as we’re in coalition locally) or the Tories will always find the seat hard to regain.
3 The answer to the question is simple:
When the wheels fall off the economy, as they will.
You can’t Tax and spend at these levels to create myriads of ‘non’ jobs in the Public Sector and expect to get away with it for ever.
@ 2 Alex - Sorry, continue to disagree re Cameron.
Davis is the only man that carries broad enough support within the party to carry it forward as a united entity.
Should our MP’s impose Cameron on the party this time around there will be carnage.
Groom Cameron for next time by all means if you must( in the nicest possible sense of the word !)
I personally just dont get ‘it’ about his apparent popularity on this board and continue to suspect it’s more about “anyone but Davis” among most of his proponents, most of whom are no friends of the Conservative Party
Irrespective of whatever us political anoraks on this board think though, wrongly or rightly, whatever the ‘talking heads’ in the media might babble to the contrary, the body of the Conserative Party membership(IMHO)continue to believe that the tide will turn when Blair’s luck finally runs out.
When that time comes the electorate will need a clear choice and a principled opposition.
If we’ve cravenly become a pale imitation of the real thing (Blairs administration)by that stage - why will they turn to us ?
7.”You can’t Tax and spend at these levels to create myriads of ‘non’ jobs in the Public Sector and expect to get away with it for ever.”
Aren’t the Scandinavian countries doing it for many years now?
Re 7 & Cameron/Davis. From where I sit Davis would be a continuation of the same and the Tories would go on apearing the nasty party. Cameron offers something very different - his whole way of presenting himself is very appealing. The fact that someone carries broad support in the party at the leadership election does not make them a good leader. Look at what the Lib Dems have been lumbered with for years.
One difficulty is that the ‘nasty party’ image, however unfair one might think it, is hard to shed in Opposition. The choice appears to be being nice and supportive to the Government, which probably doesn’t win votes, or aggressively critical, which sounds nasty. Cameron’s solution is to say that the Government is doing some fine things but not enough and not consistently enough. It’s an interesting shot at solving the dilemma but hard to do in practice, I’d think.
Tory Boy [7] - after the October (IIRC) 1974 election there was a famous letter from a Conservative Constituency Association chairman announcing that “the electorate has failed the nation” - good to hear that this view is alive and kicking in the 21st Century.
Still, it took Labour four election defeats before their party members were prepared to do anything, absolutely anything, to regain power - you’ve only had three
7. I see another of the people waiting for the Electorate to wake up and realise their terrible mistake. Eight years on and he’s still waiting. What’s the Bet you will Still be waiting in 12 Years? Read Michael Ashcroft’s Report for Goodness Sake! He’s no shrinking violet, but it was a damn good report. Yes, things have to go wrong for Labour first, but that’s not enough as Labour proved decisively in 1992, when a half decent opposition would have romped home. I think we agree there that it was Labour Wot Lost it rather than the Sun and the Tories that Wot won it. If Ashcroft think Davis can win, maybe i’ll think again but i doubt it.
Cameron has Charisma, Davis just doesn’t brutal but true.
As I said in a post yesterday until De-Thatcherization is complete there will remain an anti-Tory vote that ensures a non-Conservative government. By choosing Michael Howard, the epitome of Margaret Thatcher, the Conservatives not only showed they havent learnt Theresa May’s lesson but probably delayed their recovery by several years.
As ‘Votenow’ said it will be nearly 30 years since Maggie came to power. True. But it will only be 7 years since her progeny did.
My feeling is that the Tories in any recognizable form will not gain power again. There seems to be about 30% of the population who shares the philosophy but 70% who can’t stand it.
Eschewing xenophobia and paying lip service to public services just wont do it. They have to appear to be concerned about ’society’ as well. Particularly the most vulnerable and this includes immigrants, Gypsies, asylum seekers, single mothers, young offenders and even old ones. The paradox is though, that if these were your concerns you couldn’t be a ‘Conservative’.
It’s hard for people under 35 to imagine the spectacle of a Cabinet Minister at a Party conference making up a song about how single mother’s scrounged off benefit or communities that had built up over generations being told to get on their bikes and the xenophobia….it just seems like a long time ago-thank God!
If Davis is capable of going the whole Douglas (Hogg) and really making his libertarian bent into a core of party policy, then he has the chance to shake off the ‘nasty party’ image; anything less than that just won’t work because there is something slightly aggressive about him, even when he is being nice. (I have never seen him in person, but that is how he comes across on the TV and not just to me). Cameron’s demeanour and personality would be definite bonuses for getting rid of the nasty image, but he still hasn’t articulated a compelling vision of what Conservatism or Britain with him as PM would be like; he also runs the risk, as discussed on here before, of returning the Conservatives to the image of the ‘posh party’.
2009/10 is a long way off, but ‘events’ withstanding, I don’t think either of them are going to win the next election, simply because they don’t have that ‘Prime Ministerabil’ je ne sais quoi about them.
Davis does come across as particularly aggressive:
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NXQCVQX0OI04XQFIQMFCM5WAVCBQYJVC?xml=/news/2005/07/16/ntory16.xml
7. I wasn’t saying that Cameron was necessarily the best candidate, just that the Cheadle result can only be in his favour, for right or wrong.
8. Re Scandanavia, see the snappily titled Sweden: From Capitalist Success to Welfare-State Sclerosis or more modern offerings from Timbro.
“Davis is the only man that carries broad enough support within the party to carry it forward as a united entity.”
Problem is you need support OUTSIDE the party to take power. But I am more an more convinced the Tories don’t want power. Shades of Old Labour, staying ideologically pure. Old Tories preferring to carp about Europe from the comfort of their London Clubs …?
I think Davis is probably the “safe” choice, in the inverted-commas sense that he won’t completely crash and burn, IDS-style. Cameron is a bit more risky in that - with no disrespect to him as an individual - it is hard to know how someone that inexperienced will perform. He could prove not to be up to it; then again he could do better at reaching out and remodelling the party’s image than Davis ever would.
If Labour manages business as usual till 2009, I don’t think Davis could make it to No 10. Cameron just about could. But he could also go backwards if he doesn’t have a firm hand on the party in opposition.
Not to say that Davis is utterly hopeless - if you feel that either Gordon or the economy is going to turn nasty over this parliament, DD might be the surer hand to exploit it.
I know the Tories should not accept my advice even if I had any, but I think it is a genuinely non-obvious decision and do not know whom I would go for if I were a Tory and trying to pick an election winner.
8 - Being less serious, I must say I find a slight sense of the ridiculous about Davis reading things like this:
“This is going to be a velvet revolution. We want everybody on-side. We want everybody to go with us, to enjoy the thing; there will be no retaliations.”
If this were in a film, you kind of imagine the camera panning out from his face to a full-length shot, to reveal that he has just garrotted Alan Duncan.
Andrea, Sweden spent most of the nineties slashing public spending (though it’s still higher than it is here) precisely because its sky-high taxes were doing so much economic damage. From 1970 to 1995, it had just about the worst growth rate of any major economy, although it’s picked up since then.
FWIW, I think the Conservatives gain nothing by agonising about whether they’re nice or nasty. The biggest millstone round our necks is the belief that we’re the natural party of government, so that when we lose, we have a kind of collective nervous breakdown. We really need to ask ourselves the question “What are we here for?”
Having said that, while it’s clear that Labour voters will vote tactically to keep us out, there has been a marked decline in the number of non-Labour voters who will vote tactically to keep Labour in, both at local and national level.
20. At University they always teached me how nice Sweden system is and how bab UK was under Thatcher (all those people in low paid “bad jobs” and how the system produced “inequality”).
15 lol, this is too funny. He doesn’t come accross as agressive, he comes accoss as ridiculous
What does he want to be, Arch Duke of Ruritania? lol (even the Duke? of Lichtenstein comes accross as more of a proposition … oh sorry, he’s not a Duke he’s a prince. Tories are jibbing for an Unter Duke :))
For God’s sake, Tories, you used to come accross as the PRAGMATIC party.
Andrea @21, I’m sure they did. Polly Toynbee believes Sweden is paradise on Earth. I’ll bet they never pointed out how many foreign companies have talented expat Swedes working for them.
23- To be fair there’s always a little mention that now Sweden is having problems. But they always end up saying that flexibility (the Thatcher way, while they usually prise the Danish model: job flexibility and strong social system) is not the solution.
22 - “He doesn’t come accross as agressive, he comes accoss as ridiculous”
Yes, maybe you are right.
Let’s not forget David Davis is the man who came up with the classic quote (about himself) “When you’re hunting big game, you make sure you kill with the first shot.”
26 - wasn’t IDS the “big game” in that statement?
I think he was referring to IDS’s failure to kill him off when he dropped him as chairman. Either way, neither of them exactly fits the description “big game”.
Don’t forget that Cameron was heavily involved in organising the general election campaign - so he has his own ‘nasty credentials ‘.
I maintain that we haven’t moved from the 33% not because of right wing policies ( which generally the public support - immagration, law & order etc ) but due to tactics and image.
Our last three leaders all looked wrong - they all looked nasty - all could have been in the Adams family. So we started with our main salesman who was a negative that reinforced the average persons impression of the Tory party.
Combining this with our tactics both in the general and since in Cheadle - going negative and pushing the polices that reinforce the image. We can’t fight a negative campaign the way the Lib Dems do as voters believe the Lib Dems to be nice/harmless ( any Con / Lab activist knows different ! )and when we do it we continue to reinforce our negative image and energise the anti-tory vote into tactical voting. In terms of policy we need to have every press conference about hospitals / schools / economy etc and leave imagration etc alone, as everyone knows our views on them, so we don’t need to shout ( or use dog whistles ) to promote them. We need to reach out, not further solidify our 33%.
Cameron has the disadvantage that his image is one that promotes us as the party of the few. Labour were right to chose TB because as a public school boy he showed Labour had changed, Cameron would show us to be a party of the privledged. Also his management speak isn’t what people are looking for after Blair.
Davis has the right image - council house, single mother background, selfmade man etc that will help us look normal again. With values of aspiration not elitism. His experience as a minster/chair of the public accounts committee etc give him good experience whereas I think Cameron would look out of his depth againt Blair/Brown - not even having shadowed a big three department. Davis like Thatcher does need help with his public speaking, but that is something that can be fixed.
Can we persuade Betfair to put up a market on the next election i.e. an outright win by the various parties or no overall majority? It seems to me a lot of people are predicating their views on the unlikely scenarios, when in fact it is over 50% likely the next parliament will be hung. (Sorry Nick but I also believe you will struggle next time!)
Also interesting that the match has basically settled down to Cameron vs Davis - yet this is not reflected on Betfair.
Arguing about the Tory leadership is fairly pointless as all of the candidates are poor. There is not one who strikes me as a potential election winner.
What we have seen in this by-election is a swing of just over half a percent Tory to Lib Dem.
Compare that to by-elections gone by of up to 35% swings from Tory to Lib Dem at Christchurch.
In other words, no lift off at all for Lib Dems.
This election confirms that Lib Dems are eating more into Labour the Tory as we saw in the general election and in other recent by-elections.
Hatred for the Tories has faded, taking away much of the protest that used to go Lib Dem.
Labour should be very worried to lose their deposit. If they expected a boost from the London bombings they may be wrong.
Re. 12, yes, 92 showed that the old proposition, ‘Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them’ can be turned inside out.
Re. 25, see the interview with Davis in today’s Telegraph. Before reading it, I had quite a bit of time for him (good stint as Chairman of PAC, securing the resignation of the dreadful Beverley Hughes, statesmanlike response to the London bombings, classless accent, conversational style, rebelled over charges for eye tests) but in this interview he comes across as some sort of Alan Partridge/David Brent figure, right down to the bizarre ‘Fantastic’ (who does he think he is? Chris Ecclestone’s Dr Who?)
8 – Andrea
Indeed not only have the Scandinavians been doing for decades socially democratic party’s have hung onto power in those countries for decades at a time for the last fifty years.
“Davis has the right image” That is ridiculous. To Tories he comes across as a nasty right-winger let alone to the rest of the electorate.
As Michael Gove stated: ‘Conservative support fell among women, young voters and professional people. The party’s profile is becoming older, more masculine and less well-educated. Our core is becoming harder to break out of.’
Does anyone in their right might believe that David Davis will appeal to the voters, for whatever reason, we have disconnected with.
36 - Can you explain some examples of when he came across as ‘nasty’. Affable seems a better word.
36.”‘Conservative support fell among women, young voters and professional people. ”
In seats with a big professional population tories vote increased and they had a better than average performamce (Wimbledon is an example).
37 - To me, whenever he is interviewed on TV/radio, he comes across as another atypical right-wing Tory, somebody who wouldn’t care about your position, just their idealogy. If you talking about that interview in the Telegraph, he comes across pretty ridiculous. He obviously thinks he has already won.
38 - Across the whole country Andrea. It would be interesting to find out why the Tories did so well across South West London.
38 - But only in London Andrea. We have to win seats in place like Birmingham, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Leeds if we are to form a government. In the whole of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and South and West Yorkshire we only hold 2 seats. I don’t think Davis will appeal to these middle-class voters in the same way that Cameron could.
39 - I have a completely different impression. Even when Blunkett resigned, Davis wasn’t gloating in the media about seeing off his second home office minister but spoke with compassion about Blunkett’s sad plight.
You wouldn’t get Damian Green, Ian Taylor etc plus Portillo saying that he may be the right choice if he was just the ” nasty right-winger ” you represent.
33. Comparisons to Christchurch are pointless Printz, for two reasons:
1) The Lib Dems were defending this time round.
2) The Tories are no longer in government.
Swings of Christchurch proportions are not possible under these circumstances. The Lib Dems were never going to get ‘lift off’ less than 3 months after the election, but to have held the seat with an increased majority (in % terms) is an excellent result: bear in mind this was a seat that a decade ago had a Tory majority of 16,000. The collapse of the Labour vote in Cheadle does not to seem to indicate that the anti-Tory coalition is falling apart as quickly as you suggest.
As for what the future holds of the Tories, it comes down IMHO to discovering a solid ideological narrative, during the election campaign the Tories stood on what was a simple, workable and quite bold rightwing platform but their polices did not fit within an ideological framework which spoke to the broader concerns of the electorate.
Whether the Tory party accepts it or not, Labour is close to fashioning a new consensus in the country which is broadly supported by most voters.
This emerging consensus is still unclear in its detail, but it can already been seen that the majority of the public accept the large role the state has to play in their lives, in the provision of public services, the maintenance of law and order and the defence of the nation. But it is in the provision of public services, and even those no longer under state control, where this consensus would appear to already to heavily entrenched with the public expecting the state, through the government of the day, to provide and maintain those services which they rely on.
This consensus is then a rejection of the Conservative sponsored school of thought that emerged in the late 1970’s in the UK, in a smaller state which could outsource responsibility for public services and utilities to third party, privately run entities which it was believed would do a better job. It would seem this belief has been well and truly rejected by the majority of the public, on the back of high profile failures and the fact that if the providers of these services, which people rely on, are no longer responsible to the government elected by the people then people see the services as non longer accountable to them, and indeed only accountable to those with stakes in the private enterprises with no real obligation to the public.
The last Tory manifesto was in many ways an attempt to reject this new creeping consensus and reassert the old Thatcherite credo, with a call for lower taxation and a smaller state, and this prospectus was rejected almost as emphatically as was Hauge’s 2001 Europhobic suicide note (remember the Tory vote increased by less than 1%).
The solution for the Tories is to reconcile themselves with this newly emerged consensus, in the way in which Labour had to recognise that the unreconstructed pre-war consensus had been decisively rejected in first 1979 and then again in 1983. Neither Cameron nor Davis could simply come out saying they where excepting a Labour lead consensus, as both would then look daft to put it simply, however it is possible to see what reaction the two would be more likely to have to this consensus and how they might formulate a narrative for their party which would fit within an interact with such a consensus as seems to emerging.
Davis, is often painted by supporters and the press alike a the right-winger in the race, the free market champion, the tough shadow home sectary and the “man of action”. But from what I’ve seen taking that view is to underrated the MP for Haltemprice and Howden. Davis has a record as a pragmatist, during the Major years he served as an effective whip and a capable junior minister, so his ability is not in question but is own views on the issues remain something of an enigma. It’s true that many of Davis’ supporters are old rightists, but he has also attracted the support of moderates and party left-wingers such as Damien Green. While some Davisites would like to sail hard to the right of the government into clear blue water ideological water, it would seem that the man himself would favour something more subtle than that.
Rather than simply continuing to deny the emerging Labour built consensus, as the Tories did in the last election, Davis would probably favour a distinctive challenge to it from the right, arguing that the role of the state in providing services could be enhanced through reducing spending, devolving decision making within the public services etc… however he would be unlikely to ever be properly recoiled to the parameters of debate that the public consensus would call for and in general would steadfastly seek to alter and change the consensus from the right, how differently this would be perceived from Howard’s standpoint or how much more successful it would be remains and open question, but Howard had little success with a similar approach against an unpopular prime minister so it would be hard for Davis to make anymore headway than Howard did, if all he was to do was to refine the same failed arguments from the last election. Davis however with a record as a pragmatist might well be more likely to shift course where his initial approach to fail to make headway.
After Davis there is the other credible candidate, David Cameron. Cameron’s recent statements and the attitudes of his close allies such as Letwin and Osborne seem to suggest that he is far more ready to accept the parameters which the public consensus impose. Indeed rather than giving in to the perennial Tory temptation for the last decade or more of going after the targets of immigration or Europe rather than engaging with the broader political debate on the ground it currently lies, Cameron seems prepared to largely accept that there has been a shift and solidification in the public’s political views, indeed Cameron’s quite simple response so far has been “we agree that X & Y need doing, but we can do it better”, without undermining the state or shifting responsibility Cameron could develop what are in effect Blairite views in a conservative direction.
A Tory party lead by Cameron would still espouse the traditional Tory Euroscepticism (no bad thing IMHO) and tough line on crime but on crime their would be a more libertarian edge, while on the public services Cameron would probably be keen to embrace the virtues of private-public partnerships in a way which Blair’s ideological viewpoint and party stop him from doing. In effect Cameron would position his party as the party which could be trusted with public services, the same way in which Labour had to work to be trusted with the economy, by doing this and effectively developing Blairite thinking in a rightward direction, Cameron would stand to challenge for the inheritance of the “97- Blair Coalition” against a Brownite Labour Party, it should also be remembered that a large part of that collation where many LibDem MPs who where elected thanks to traditionally Tory voters turning against their old party, Cameron would stand to win back voters both in traditional marginals and in LibDem seats gained in 97 and 2001.
That’s enough rambling for now…
37. The consensus seems to be that he didn’t come across as nasty but he does come across as aggressive, which will make the task of shaking off the party’s ‘nasty’ image even harder.
40-41. I was only referring to seats with many professionals and they’re all are in London.
I was only casting some doubts about the fact that the tories have lost support between professionals at theis election.
I wrote earlier but think I will say it again, sound like Humphrey Bogarte, do not look like him though.
Davies/Cameron. Neither, the party needs a total new image, a total rebranding. They are just both more of the same. To champion David Cameron amuses me, he was I believe Michael Howards advisor confidante etc at the Home Office. Can you imagine how Labour and the Liberal Democrats will play that. Why must it be a man?
Suggest todays Daily Telegraph editorial is compulsory reading for all on this web site, do not agree with that paper normally but here in my view they have hit the nail on the head.
Cannot understand why MPs want to usurp the parties democratic electoral structure. Lib Dems have upteen vying for the leadership, all go on the ballot paper, members vote by single transferrable which is the key to producing a sensible result, no result is ever perfect, but sensible is the right approach. No group of MPs should be above or frightened of its membership otherwise there is no real party, is there? . End of my thought for the day, will go and enjoy the golf.
44 - “This consensus is then a rejection of the Conservative sponsored school of thought that emerged in the late 1970’s in the UK… It would seem this belief has been well and truly rejected by the majority of the public”
Ben! Such disloyalty to your leadership!
I think this is a false dichotomy. There is no necessary reason why publically accountable services need to be publically run, albeit some quite detailed policy thought is needed to make the arrangement work. I don’t think Blair or Brown would disagree on this, though the actually Ken Clarke/Gordon Brown implementation of PFI has been pretty atrocious in delivering value and illusory in any claim to have transferred risk away from the public sector.
“Cameron would probably be keen to embrace the virtues of private-public partnerships in a way which Blair’s ideological viewpoint and party stop him from doing.”
Interesting that George Osborne’s recent “I am as guilty as anyone but I have seen the light” speech attacked the leadership for having opposed foundation hospitals and university fees.
“To champion David Cameron amuses me, he was I believe Michael Howards advisor confidante etc at the Home Office. Can you imagine how Labour and the Liberal Democrats will play that. Why must it be a man?”
And Tony Blair stood for an election of quitting the EU, but unless he was in Minister, it really isn’t going to stick.
I also don’t think it would stick that David Davis was a member of the last Major Government. The general public are not going to associate either man particularly with last Tory Government, unlike Michael Howard or dare I say (sorry Nuala) Malcolm Rifkind.
Slightly different angle - but is DD’s hair all his own? Looking at different pictures of him his parting always seems to be exactly the same.
As an own-up baldie I’m always suspicous of men in their late 50s with so much hair.
Sophia re 51, do not underestimate the skill of the Labour and Liberal democrats in highlighting this, look how Labour dragged up Michael Howards activities at that time.
I ask agin why a man?
51. Kennedy’s hair are always in the same position too. It could be a windy day and his bang won’t move.
Mike I can’t answer your question about David Davis’s hair but I have to cut mine short or look like a mobile hedge (except for the small Prince Charles bald spot). When I tried to lose my parting of 50 odd years recently it refused to disappear, even in crew cut mode.
52 - I am sorry that there is one thing attacking Michael Howard who we all knew and “loved” from the Thatcher/Major era but David Cameron or David Davis even. I believe David Cameron was the man behind putting CCTV on every street.
Sophia, I am not attacking. I am passing a comment that could well in the future be vigourously picked up on, in my view it would be wery dangerous to ignore it. On every street? Why a man?
Weather too splendid for anything but random thought-thinggies (well constructed sentences are definitely out :)), so:
1. Oh Ben, splendido chutzpah, but the LABOUR consensus
?? The real problem for the Tories is that since 1997 many of the key tenets of the ‘orrible eighties’ have been taken further and faster (extended liberalisation/marketisation, tuition fees etc ) than even the Finchely Indovukazi would have dared. OK, softer and gentler…and actually thus far quite effectively. Re-read your 4th paragraph, and muse on all those privatisations and subsequent liberalisations (energy, telecommunications, water, and bu**er me, even the railways) all untouched. This is the real foundation for the late 20th/early 21st century political and economic settlement.
2. Comrades, we Tories have always been the ‘nasty’ party (who needs Mrs May’s cliched twitterings when the fusillades of pullulation from Winston Churchill in the 1900s, and Nye - “I hate the Tories, they’re lower than vermin” - in the 1940s have so much more resonance
.
But, but, but, the Tories were seen as competent: they might be repulsive but they were usually right, at least on economic management. Hummpf, 1992-97 put an end to all that… Don’t want to misnterpret Nick Palmer earlier, but the absolutely necessary condition for the Tories to regain voters’ trust is actually that Labour is no longer seen as economically competent.
3. But clearly, the party must address its public perception. And, having sat on the fence for so long, that the iron has begun to enter the soul, looks to me that David Cameron, for all the risks, is best placed to tackle that problem, as well as being able to develop a credible economic strategy. Very much influenced by the discussions here, though the final clincher was that surreal Telegraph interview that pressed all the wrong buttons for this delicate blue flower….
Mike S [51] - so that’s why you gave me a wide berth at the party
One of the surprises of the last election was the failure of the Lib Dems to apply a really effective squeeze on the Labour vote in their contests against the Tories. Weston Super Mare is a clear case in point but they would have held Guildford if the Labour vote had been driven down to the 5% range. I haven’t looked at the figures but I suspect the same is true for a number of other seats. It seems to me that they are now overstretched on the ground and in general cannot mount the substantial ground efforts required to convince Labour voters to make the switch in particularly where the vote is already historically depressed. In a byelection with all the eggs in one basket its much easier and Labour’s performance in Cheadle shows that there is no magic 10% floor for Labour votes.In 2009 an additional problem for the LDs will be the boundary changes making it more difficult to play the tactical game.
As for the Tories absent a UKIP challenge this was a predictably dismal performance showing that there has been no real recovery from the historic low in the Cheadle constituency at the GE. In 1992 we won the seat with, from memory, about 16000 and only achieved a bare majority in Parliament. Still with a leadership contest there was no reason to think we would win the seat. The stupidity was for the Party to indulge in yet another burst of fatuous optimism with no empirical evidence to justify it. These have become a depressingly regular feature of the last few years.
56 - David, I know your not attacking but I really don’t think it will stick at all. Well, apart from Teresa, I can’t see any other women candidates.
Blue Moon [59] - massive boundary changes didn’t do the Lib Dems much harm in 1997… I rather think that Blair’s “vote Lib Dem, get a Tory” line had something to do with it.
61. The funny thing is that Libdems % of votes didn’t go up in tories/Libdems seats (+ 0.5% in seats with the tories in first place and Libdems in second; - 0.6% in seats with the Libdems in first place and the tories in second), while it went up in Labour/tories seats (+ 4.7% in seats with Labour in first place and the tories in second) and in Lab/Libdems seats.
I think that Blair would have not minded the Libdems doing well in tories/libdems marginals and killing off half of the Shadow Cabinet, while the 4% increase in lab/tories costed Labour some marginals.
Sophia, cant get to the golf.
I can
A few random thoughts on a hot sunny day some of which I have said before and will no doubt sat again .
It is a mistake to assume that someone who votes for a party then they are a natural supporter of that party . This is true of only a decreasing portion of the voters as a whole . This core vote is probably in my estimation ignoring those who do not vote at all around 25 - 30 % each for Labour and Conservatives and 10 - 15 % for the Lib Dems . The rest of the electorate have little or no interest day to day in politics only giving some thoughts to it at Election time . This does not necessarily mean that the Conservatives can rely on their core vote and concentrate on the large number of floaters because people are strange and they often have long standing antipathy to a party often the Conservatives , sometimes Labour but very rarely the Lib Dems .
Boundary changes generally help the Lib Dems because it throws doubt into minds as to who is in with a chance of winning in a seat with no directly comparable past result to go on .
The now it seems current fashion of holding County Council elections on the same day as a GE allows voters in two minds which way to vote to split their vote . There is clear evidence that many voters will vote Lib Dem locally and Labour or to a lesser extent Conservative in the GE . It is an interesting question as to which way they would have voted without the option to split their votes .
Finally there is no evidence that the absence of a UKIP candidate helps the Conservatives . All the evidence shows that their votes comes in roughly equal portions from the 3 main parties and a similar number who would not vote at all .
Sohpia, just one other thought about David Cameron. Do you live in the North. I have lived in the North, Sheffield, Rotherham Liverpool. Manchester, Durham, Leeds, Bradford, Blackpool, Lancaster and the North Midlands over the past 40 years.
I think David Cameron would go down in most of these areas of high population and number of constituencies like a lead ballon.
Who is going a appeal most to the northern seats we need to win. I’s say Davis without a doubt but I’m sure people will disagree. I agree with 65.
65 and 66 If you are right why do those areas go for a Blair led Labour party?
67 - Well, Blair’s from the north - a mixture of Durham and Edinburgh.
Isn’t Blair a public school boy with a Tory father who has never lived north of Oxford except when at Fettes?
67. Blairs success I always thought was getting the south to vote for him. Most of the northern seats would vote for a monkey with a red rosette on. Look at Shaun Woodward in St Helens.
64 - Mark, on UKIP I tend to agree, although I think that the proportion might be nearer 50:25:25 with the 50 being Tories. But I am sure that the absence of a UKIP candidate in Cheadle was an advantage for the Tories. I UKIP had sottd and obtained say 3000 votes, then I think the Lib Dem majority would have been about 6000.
65 - No I don’t live in the north, but I do seriously think that places like Cheadle, a David Cameron Tory party would do much better than a David Davis Tory party. I alway thought the more north you went the more they hated the Thatcherite Tory party exemplfied by a certain Mr Davis, but maybe I am wrong. BTW, Shaun Woodward of course used to be the MP for Witney!
70. Are you suggesting that Shaun Woodward is a monkey (with a butler!)?
73 - In hartlepool they vote for monkeys with or without a red rosette
73. No I’m not. Monkeys are loyal animals aren’t they.
71. But UKIP got only 1% in May, so their absence wasn’t so important for the Cheadle results considering that the Libdems got a decent majoirty.
And Veritas was present this time.
74. I don’t blame them. The monkey is an improvement from Peter Mandelson.
65 - All Tories would go down like a lead balloon in places like Liverpool. I am not quite sure what you are getting at. Margaret Thatcher comes from if not the north a north midlands lower middle class background and I can’t see the 2005 populations of Sheffield, Rotherham Liverpool. Manchester, Durham, Leeds, Bradford, Blackpool, Lancaster and the North Midlands voting for her.
Woody Now you are getting to the hub of it. Its not that he is who he is but that tribalism is stronger in some Reds and some Blues than free political thinking, perhaps.
Mark S has it right I am sure. The core Labour and Tory vote, although located in different geographical areas, is about the same size.
Our probelm is getting those in the other core to give us a chance. They did it in 78 and it paid off for both sides. The current decade brings new problems but also some old ones. And like a marriage we need to bring something old and something new and something really blue.
We must not be tempted to become a sort of soft blue centred NuLab. They may spin but we must not. The LibDems may use negative and misleading campaigning. We must never do so. If we are consistent in this then there will come a tipping point as there was in 1977-8, when the inherited hostility to the Tory message and brand changed to became a resonance that lasted 15 years.
76 - It would have been a by-election for UKIP too, and the Tories would have had to fight on two fronts. But I was not arguing that they would have got 3000, just putting forward a hypothesis. No one has talked much of Veritas - but Cheadle would seem to have killed them off completely. Meno male!
Actually, I don’t think monkeys are very loyal.
“The LibDems may use negative and misleading campaigning. We must never do so.” :LOL:
Did you go itno hibernation in April and wake up five minutes ago?
81. Bubbles is to Micheal Jackson.
83 - I don’t want to even go there.
Peter I am talking about what we must do now. you know, the odd idea that you might just change how you do things?
80.”No one has talked much of Veritas - but Cheadle would seem to have killed them off completely”
Now a member of Veritas is challenging Kilroy for the leadership. So the other 2 members of the party will decide Kilroy’s future.
86. Their office in Derby has very little activity. Hope they didn’t take out a long lease on it. (actually I do, I can’t stand Kilroy)
Re. 43, I agree, Chrisco. Labour also lost its deposits in Romsey (2000) and Winchester (November 97), thanks to the same anti-Tory tactical voting, just as the LDs lost their deposit in the 96 Staffordshire SE by-election, in which Labour was best placed to beat the Tories.
Re. 57, I’m glad it’s not just me who found Davis’ DT interview so absurd.
I think one can overestimate what oppositions can do to make themselves electable… the political “sea changes” of the last century were
(i) 1918-29: replacement of Liberals by Labour;
(ii) 1945: desire to punish Tories (and Liberals) for failure of post WW One settlement, also appeasement
(iii) 1976 & 1992 - destruction of governing party’s record of economic competence
Only in the first case did the opposition parties have anything to do with it. (Indeed, Thatcher herself was clear that her 1979 mandate only permitted her to proceed with great caution.) Frankly, the Conservatives can either sit back and wait for a similar catastrophe to overtake NuLab (which is what most Tories here seem to want to do) or - which I think would appeal to the ghost of Disraeli - figure out a way to make a hung Parliament work to their advantage.
Just seen that the Solihull Tories have selected a candidate for the next election allready! It’ll be interesting to see if other parties folow suit. Their was a bit in Progress magazine about Tories picking candidates well before the election to help get them embedded in the constituency. The article is largely about Grant Shapps who pulled off one of the biggest Labour to Tory swings in the country.
90. The candidate selected in Solihull contested Colne Valley at this GE and she got a decent result. Interesting that she choose to contest a just gained Libdems seat (they should benefit from the first incumbency effect if the MP will work well) and not trying to contest again Colne Valley (now with a 3.1% majority).
90. Wimbledon is another seat where the tories stayed with candidate defeated in 2001 and they got a strong swing for them this time. In Welwyn Hatfield it made sense to keep the same candidate (he performed well in 2001 reducing Lab majority from 10.6% to 2.8%).
I don’t think Michael Gove’s right about young voters. So far as I can tell from MORI, Conservative support rose slightly among the 18-34 age group.
I must admit, I find it hard to reconcile MORI’s finding of a drop in support among AB voters with the results in many of the most upmarket constituencies - not just SW London, but also Guildford, Hertsmere, Southgate, St. Alban’s, Tynemouth, Cardiff North, Edgbaston etc. *unless* there were very sharp local variations among AB voters to the Conservatives.
90 - I think she lives in Solihull which makes campaigning a lot easier. David Evenett who won in Bexleyheath had stood in 1997 and 2001 before finally winning this time round.
93. but we’re talking about MORi findings…. they’re sometimes “bizarre”.
94.yes, she’s from Solihull.
I think that at the moment many potential candidates are waiting to see if some MPs in safe seats will retire.
I’m sure someone has got a computer programme whereby they could check out changes in vote share in, say, the 50 constituencies with the highest proportion of AB voters.
96. which are the constituencies with the highest proportion of AB voters?
Sophia,
re 78, You are talking about 2009,2010. Where will the anti labour swing be? The Conservatives have got to get into the urban areas of these zones if they are going anywhere, otherwise they have got to think of a possible co-alition with presumably the Liberal Democrats.
For goodness sake forget Margaret Thatcher. You need someone who can quietly appeal to voters in those areas and who could work with the Liberal Democrats. to many of which voted Conservative in the 60s and 70s.Without that and Scotland there is no prospect of a Conservative government, which presumably is what you would aspire to, yes , no
I am sure there is someone who might, I say might be able to do this, but cannot see DC with his MH connection and relatively privileged background being the person. The right woman maybe.
Roger, Do You Remember what David Blunkett Said About Asylum Seekers?
“but cannot see DC with his MH connection”. Michael Howard was a pretty successful home secretary as it happens. Can you tell me how this will have a negative effect on DC but I can’t see it. The main problem with Michael Howard is his image (he comes across say as rather oily), as far as I can see DC has a totally different image than MH.
98 - You seem very determined that we should not choose David Cameron, and by your posts I can tell that you’re no Tory; it reinforces my view that he IS the right man for the job.
100 - Good to see you holding your nerve, Sophia.
I don’t think DC’s background is that relevant. It isn’t inner-city seats we’re targetting its more the suburban one’s. I think that he will be far more appealing to voters in Cheadle, Hallam, Ed S, Eastwood, Cardiff North, Bolton West, Bury North, Stourbridge etc than Davis would be.
102 - I think you’re right, Max. But I do think that those of us supporting one candidate or another should focus on the virtues of our man and not the shortcomings of the other. We’ll all have to work together once question of leadership is decided, after all.
We might need to adjourn this debate as I think you’ll find that the all parties and especially the Tories go to sleep in August!
Meanwhile, two more German polls show the position continuing to tighten there: the centre-right on 50% with the left-greens on 47%. The far-left PDS/WASG is now the largest in the former GDR in both polls, on 30+% (interestingly, the addition of the WASG has helped the PDS more where it was already strong - they still only get 3-5% in the west). While there is no possibility of a left-green government including the PDS/WASG this time, it is looking something of a cliff-hanger for those who were expecting Merkel to be the next Chancellor by a large margin.
104 - I see nothing in those figures to make me doubt my original conclusion. Schroeder has ruled out a coalition with the PDS/WASG, so I think whatever happens, Merkel will be Chancellor, either at the head of a CDU/FDP administration or a Grand Coalition as the CDU/CSU are virtually certain to be the largest party.
I’m also not convinced that these numbers that Lafontaine is getting in the polls is going to materialise at the voting booths.
Nick, one thing that puzzles me about the German voting system is the frequent speculation about the minor coalition partners - FDP and Greens - failing to reach the threshold of 5% or 3 constituency members. Is it possible for the SPD to withdraw their candidates to give the Greens a free run in 3 constituencies with clear centre-left majorities, or the CDU/CSU to do the same in favour of the FPD in their heartlands, in order to ensure representation for their preferred coalition partners ? Are there political or constitutional barriers to this ?
Re 101 I would suggest you have to think outside the routine Conservative view, and take a very onjective stance. Anyway let us wait and see, I am convinced you do have someone who could do it for you.
107 - So am I, and I will continue to support him fully.
97. I’ve downloaded some census 2001 data for social classifaction, split by constituency (England & Wales).
The seats with the highest % of ” 1. Higher managerial and professional occupations : ALL PEOPLE ” are:
Kensington & Chelsea
Hampstead & Highgate
Richmond Park
Cities of London & Westminster
Wimbledon
Bristol West
Battersea
Putney
Hammersmith & Fulham
Cambridge.
This isn’t necessarily a good predictor of the Conservative vote, though. Seats like Boston and Skegness (safe Tory) and Great Yarmouth (Lab/Con marginal) are in the bottom 20.
Any chance you could direct me to, say, the top 50. Finding this stuff on the ONS website really is searching for a needle in a haystack.
105. Why don’t you think PDS/Lafontaine will get those numbers? IIRW before the European Elections polls underestimated PDS.
104. Nick, maybe WASG isn’t helping PDS so much in the west, because they’re still poorly organized there (compared to the East).
I read Merkel made a makeover to improve her image, but I can’t notice any diffrences. Everytime I see a photo of Westerwelle, he’s drinking. Maybe it’s a “must” for liberals (even if they’re different types of liberals).
I would have thought trawling round the University seats would find a fair few of them - and bar K and C which contains one of my former educational establishments (very few of whose staff or students can afford to live there) I couldn’t think of any which are held by the Tories. I’m sure someone will set me straight on this though…
Kent at Canterbury is one I guess…
I respect your view, but think there is a woman who could do it
109, Alan J, how did you manage to download this interesting constituency data? I have been finding the 2001 Census website very hard to use since it was re-jigged … congratulations, and thanks for any guidance you can give!
I think I must have seen Cameron on TV at some point, but I have no real impression of him. I’ve seen Davies on TV a few times, and can remember some of what he said, and can see why he has some appeal (though not for me, but then I was a Lab2Lib voter.)
111 - I wonder if people are reacting to the novelty of a new player on the field or out of true accord with the principles the PDS stands for, being one reason. Secondly, how reliable are typical PDS and left leaning voters in Germany to turn out, relative to CDU/CSU and FDP voters?
Clearly, Germany cannot go on the way it is in a state of economic sclerosis. They need serious economic reform and quickly. For their own sake, I hope the PDS doesn’t perform so well as to prevent the political alignment necessary to respond to this need from forming.
114 - Whom, pray tell?
109. According to the Parliament website the seats with “Highest managerial and professional populations:% of pop aged 16-74″ are:
Battarsea (50.4% of managerial and professional), Kensigton % Chelsea (50.3%), Wimbledon (50%), Richmond Park (49.9%), Hampstead and Highgate (49.2%), Twickenham (47.6%), Hammersmith and Fulham (47.1%), Putney (46.7%), Cities of London & Westminster (45.8%),Tooting (45.2%).
117.” Secondly, how reliable are typical PDS and left leaning voters in Germany to turn out, relative to CDU/CSU and FDP voters?”
I don’t know, but it’s an interesting question. In UK it seems that the tories are more likely to turn out to vote, here in Italy it’s the opposite: the left and the far left especially usually always turn out to vote. Infact in by-elections with low turnout it’s almost impossible for the centre-right to win (even if they have more than a 20% majority at GE).
116 - I see David Davis made a huge impression on you as well, considering you are mistaking him for the Honourable Member for Monmouth in Wales, David Davies.
There is only one other prominent woman on the front bench is there not, and in my very humble opinion would have the best chance of cross party appeal, I may be totally wrong but……
Caroline Spellman
I would just like to put in a word for David Davis…..The interview for which he’s being pilloried was carried out by Alice Thompson who is barking mad……
(Though I agree that if you read the article she seems to have met her match)
115. I went into NOMIS http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/home/census2001.asp.
Then I started the wizard query.
I selected “2001 Census - Census Area Statistics” as the dataset.
Then I clicked “cell” under “go to next step”.
From the list that came up I selected “CAS047 NS-SeC by tenure”.
Since I wasn’t particularly interested in tenure I just selected the cells in the “ALL PEOPLE” column.
Then I clicked “geography” under “go to next step”.
I selected all “parliamentary constituencies 1995 revision” and clicked “extract data”.
The rest is just spreadsheet manipulation.
Hope this helps !
122 - I have a lot of admiration for Caroline Spelman, but to this point I have not regarded her as leadership material. I’m open to persuasion, but I think it quite unlikely.
Caroline Spellman!!!
Are you being ironic David? I heard her in a three way interview during the election and it was proof if proof was needed that the party was desperate for some more talent.
122 - I’m a big fan of Caroline Spelman and think she should have a far bigger more high profile job when the new leader appoints the shadow cabinet. Unfortunately she hasn’t really shown any ambition for the top job. She would probably make a decent leader but she’s not a serious contender.
Of course, we could have Jesus Christ himself on our frontbench and Roger would still say that our party lacked gravitas and talent.
I’m trying to clear the way for you…….
PS And ‘Jesus Christ himself’ would never be a Tory!
128 - And that it was proof we were anti muslim, anti-hindu, anti-bhuddist, homophobic etc.
130 - Everyone knows the Devil is a Liberal Democrat and God is a good Conservative, come along now.
119. I think I discovered why the figures I found on the Parliament’s website are different from the ones reported by Alan J @ 109. I think that the Parliament’s figure put together “higher manegerial and professional occupations” and “lowest manegerial and professional occupations”
124, thanks, I’ll try it! 112, Tory university seats: off the top of my head maybe we can add Surrey (Guildford), QM Roehampton (Putney), Brunel (Uxbridge), most campuses of the University of Hertfordshire, Bournemouth (W), Royal Holloway (Runnymede), and even Essex (Wivenhoe ward is in Essex North). Warwick U is partly in Rugby and Kenilworth, as well as Coventry S. I doubt if one should count the private Buckingham ….
Theresa May is nice. She’d make a good leader
128 - Exactly, Max. I can picture him saying it now!
124, thanks, I’ll try it! 112, Tory university seats: off the top of my head maybe we can add Surrey (Guildford), QM Roehampton (Putney), Brunel (Uxbridge), most campuses of the University of Hertfordshire, Bournemouth (W), Royal Holloway (Runnymede), and even Essex (Wivenhoe ward is in Essex North). Warwick U is partly in Rugby and Kenilworth, as well as Coventry S. I doubt if one should count the private Buckingham ….
On the subject of some of the other posts, Major didn’t do particularly well in the north in 1992, so it doesn’t seem obvious that the “kinder gentler” technique is what was preferred there. That precedent does eem a long time ago now, though.
36 Er …. Yes - that’s why he’s favourite to win at the moment.
@40 Across London in general, the LD’s policies of LIT and on law and order were particularly unpopular
79 We must not be tempted to become a sort of soft blue centred NuLab. They may spin but we must not. The LibDems may use negative and misleading campaigning. We must never do so. If we are consistent in this then there will come a tipping point as there was in 1977-8, when the inherited hostility to the Tory message and brand changed to became a resonance that lasted 15 years.
Very well said !
106,111,117: Lorcan, as you say it would I think be possible