Cocaine poll boost send punters rushing to Cameron
October 16th, 2005-
Tories divide 69:29 saying hard drugs should not be a barrier
The absence of bad stories in the Sunday papers and a new opinion poll have led to heavy betting on David Cameron this morning. On the market sensitive Betfair exchange his price has tightened from 0.85/1 to 0.72/1 while the betting recovery on David Davis has been reversed.
For the last few days there has been a strong view that today’s papers, particularly the Mail on Sunday, could be crucial ahead of the MPs first ballot on Tuesday. Well the MoS does plaster a story over its front page under the banner headline “Tories for Cameron - even if he has taken cocaine”.
This refers to a BPIX poll which is not available online (buy the paper like me - it cost £1.30) which shows that the Tories under Cameron would would do 4% better against Labour than under Ken Clarke and 8% better than under David Davis or Liam Fox.
Cameron’s refusal to say whether he has taken drugs is backed by 54-37% by Tory supporters who divide 29% YES to 69% NO to the suggestion that a candidate who has taken hard drugs should step down.
The paper’s editorial sticks with the Mail Group’s line that he should come clean and notes, “…. Mr Cameron appears to have the mysterious gift of invulnerability, handed out by a capricious fate to a lucky few. He shines under almost all circumstances. Pelted with clods of mud, he emerges smooth, unspotted and smiling, to the rage of his enemies.”
The Indy on Sunday also has a poll this morning showing a benefit to the Tories under Cameron than Davis - though its size is smaller. The survey, by Communicate Research, is of little value because it asks respondents whether they would vote Labour of Tory without giving the option of the Liberal Democrats or any other party.
Given that at the last election nearly a third of all voters did not opt for Labour or the Tories the Indy’s approach is a nonsense.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
“…. Mr Cameron appears to have the mysterious gift of invulnerability, handed out by a capricious fate to a lucky few. He shines under almost all circumstances. Pelted with clods of mud, he emerges smooth, unspotted and smiling, to the rage of his enemies.”
…who but the Mail could come up with terminology like that for an editorial
If Cameron has taken coke, then we will be the laughing stock of the world if he becomes PM (unlikely though it is)
G.W. Bush allegedly used cocaine in his youth and later became President of the U.S.A., so what’s to stop Mr Cameron from being chosen as leader of the Tory party, or PM?
mike, although i love your site, the bias displayed by yourself can sometimes make me wince. The stuff with cameron lately has been particually bad.
‘If Cameron has taken coke, then we will be the laughing stock of the world’
‘G.W. Bush allegedly used cocaine in his youth and later became President of the U.S.A’
…and Bush isn’t a laughing stock across the world?!
-although for different reasons no doubt.
Tom 4. I am not biased to Cameron but reporting what is going on. Less than three weeks ago this is what I was saying - hardly a bias in Cameron’s favour.
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/09/29/why-my-money-is-staying-on-ken/
This was a story from earlier in September - again pretty hard on Cameron.
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/09/08/time-to-cut-your-losses-on-cameron/
I could go on and on. If there’s a big move on the markets or some new poll or other factor I report it and give my view.
This was my story on the morning after the Cameron speech - hardly biased.
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/10/05/davis-still-in-a-commanding-lead/
Totally unscientific, but at our CF Freshers stall at York Uni yesterday, we had a poll going on to ask who people wanted to be the next tory leader. We had 254 responses and 91% voted Cameron. Our membership will be fairly annoyed if he is voted out on tuesday!
4 - I agree. It’s sickening. The fact remains that the betting on Davis v Cameron up until December will be just as volatile as the previous two months. It’s not a done deal. That’s the ONLY racing certainty.
8. I think sickering is a very harsh word. mike has never declared that he’s impartial. He simply starts topics so we can argue and debate them. This isn’t the BBC (although that’s probably more bias)
& 8. Yesterday I was reporting how I’d reduced my betting exposure on Cameron because there is a long way to go.
8 - Sorry but thats really not fair. A lot of good news has come out for Cameron recently and it would be remiss of Mike not to highlight it. similarly the drugs questionss don’t seem to be doing him (Cameron) that much damage. OTOH their hasn’t been a great deal of good news for the other candidates and you can hardly just invent stuff.
It might not be a done deal but surely no-one can deny that DC has made considerable strides since the Blackpool conference.
Davis is going to have to be careful that this doesn’t become a no-win situation for him. Is there not a scenario where Cameron chances are stitched by more revelations; and somehow Davis takes the rap. You can’t help feeling that Davis is employing exactly the same strategy that he employed on Blunkett and Hughes. His whole reputation is based on taking those scalps, so it must be tempting. It’s another thing to be perceived as doing it to your own side, and this might be the second consecutive parliament to see three different leaders of the opposition.
People should really think about what they’re saying before indulging in all this inane Smithson-bashing. Go have a word with yourselves (or alternatively, **** off).
7 - that’s some statistic, Jon. There’s no doubt from my (equally unscientific) observations of Tory sentiment that if there was a vote tomorrow Cameron would win on a landslide. In fact, I think the MPs could give the membership THREE candidates and DC would still poll over 50% (again, I’m speculating - any polls to suggest this is incorrect?).
The big surprise is that DD’s support hasn’t ’softened’ more.
Do many tory mps STILL think that competent-but-dull is the way to go? Really? What are they on?
The current leader of the Liberal party was alleged to have had serious drink problems (according to the tabloid press),not 20 years ago when he was a student, but 2 years ago when he was party leader.
Doesn’t seem to have done any political damage to him,in fact if the opinion polls can be believed at the last election,his overall personal rating was high amongst the party leaders.
14. IMHO Davis support has softend, if not collapsed, among the membership in general. the declared MP’s have remained firmish but isnt that more a question of face saving? it seems to me many jumped on the early favoiurites bandwagon wanting to be associated with the eventual winner and may find it hard to jump off.
I cannot see Davis winning the membership vote, i hear members talking of “stopping him” and I think people will vote for whoever he is up against in the last two to that end.
The Irony is that the new leadership election rules that didnt get through were designed to stop Davis, it now looks as though it is because we are running on the old rules that Davis is doomed - sweet!
I almost feel sorry for Davis now. I don’t see how he could win this contest against Cameron.
14 - We don’t know how soft it is amongst MP’s. Can’t see that anyone would want to publicly rat on him but who knows what will take place in the secrecy of the ballot box. We’ll all find out on Tuesday!
And a small piece of news that might affect the votes of Scots Tories - The Scotland on Sunday has come out in favour of David Cameron.
18. Max, what type of newspaper the Scotland on Sunday is?
19 - Same as the Scotsman. Broadly center-right without being particularly pro-Tory. Very pro-business and lower taxes, quite sceptical about devolution and tends to be read mostly by people from the East Coast.
20. Thanks Max.
If DC does become leader,watch for a warming in Tory-Lib Dem relations,as DC likes some charlie:wink:
Andrew Lansley has just declared for Ken Clarke. This is a vey important endorsement from a well respected figure in the Party.
Labour led by Brown 44%
Conservative led by Cameron 26%
Labour led by Brown 45%
Conservative led by Davis 26%
These are the Communicate Research figures that our host poo-poos. Indeed, he seems so disgusted by Communicate’s methodology that he not only supresses the result but also loses the ability to construct a sentence :
“The Indy on Sunday also has a poll this morning showing a benefit to the Tories under Cameron than Davis - though its size is smaller.”
Not Smithson-bashing, just having some fun at his doing what I do far too often: letting his heart rule his book.
Can`t believe I am saying this, but here goes as no 17.
Starting to almost feel sorry for Davies.
Watching the coverage it is becoming so biased, especially on the itv.
Today for example Dimbleby kept showing clips of Tories asleep through
David Davies speech.
Contrasting that with Cameron`s open gestures.
Reminds me of 1994 when Blair was crowned by the media, contrasting with Browns so called gruffness.
Must be a done deal then.
SERO - Of all the things that were in the weekend papers the CA poll made me most angry because of its defective methodology. I have attacked them here before and their performance at the General Election proved me right.
The questions were - would you support Labour or the Tories under certain leaders without any reference whatsoever to the other parties?
They ought to have asked - how would you vote with DD/DC as Tory leader and GB as Labour leader and then allowed respondents to answer Lib Dem/SNP/Green etc.
Also if you want to get into further detail their sample is highly distorted towards Labour - something that often happens with telephone pollsters. More than 44% of those in the survey said they voted Labour on May 5th compared with the 36% that actually did do. So their figures are based on having a quarter more Labour supporters than a proper sample should have. This produces a huge Labour bias.
Most phone pollsters take some step to fix this. From the details on the CA website I can find no adjusting mechanism.
26.Mike Smithson, that poll shows that Cameron would not destroy Brown in a direct fight like many here are claiming.
4 & 8 Guy, as someone who has complained to Mike about this previously I do feel the need to jump to his defence one this occasion.
I think Cameron is wrong,lucky (so far) and is heading for a giant fall somewhere down the line over this myself.
I’m as equally frustrated as you that he (DC - not Mike!)is seemingly able to walk on water over an issue that would have destroyed most.
Mike is though only reporting the fact that (at face value) he has overcome his big (non) test (the weekend press), the fact that the polls aren’t damning him either and that money appears to be moving back towards him as a result.
Let’s focus on the message rather than the messenger !
14 So what makes your judgement better than theirs then David ?
16 I concede the irony in your last paragraph cynic… funny old game what ?
Ken Clarke said he could come first in the MP ballott.
Perhaps we should ask him too if he has taken some substances!
He hopes that the MPs will chose him and Cameron for the run off.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4347052.stm
The lead story in Scotland on Sunday is even more damning of Davis
“DAVID Davis ordered Conservative MPs not to answer questions about their drugs past 18 months ago - directly contradicting his call for leadership rival David Cameron to come clean on narcotics.
Scotland on Sunday has been passed a dossier by insiders close to Cameron which they claim proves Davis has behaved “hypocritically” in the Tory leadership race. The contest has become engulfed by the question of Cameron’s alleged drug-taking.
The dossier was drawn up by Davis in January 2004 when the then Home Secretary David Blunkett said that politicians should answer the drugs question.
Davis ordered a research brief to be compiled on how senior Labour figures, including Tony Blair, had refused to answer the question. His aim was to make it easier for Tory shadow ministers to defend their own stance of non-compliance. The brief was then handed out to Tory MPs.”
For the full story, see http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/
I may have to revise my thinking on Davis risking tactical voting. True it has the potential to go horribly wrong, but far better PR wise to spin you were done in by treacherous MP’s, than to limp into a run off with Cameron with the overwhelming likelihood of a humiliating defat to Cameron by a thumping margin among the membership at the end of it. That is why the question of who is eliminated first becomes of ever greater interest.
27 - “that poll shows that Cameron would not destroy Brown in a direct fight”
No it doesn’t - it may purport to show that, but in fact it merely estimates what would happen if there was a General Election RIGHT NOW and everyone was forced to vote either Tory (with Cameron) or Labour (with Brown).
The poll reveals nothing about how Cameron might fare against Brown over several Parliamentary sessions and how the electorate might respond.
31. Lansley’s decision to go with Ken is very interesting though, I had expected him to jump on the Cameron bandwagon, he’s known the Chap for years, good friends with him and is both shrewd and ambitious. Of course Ken coming first is nonsense but that’s just Ken sounding off for the Media, but IF he can survive the first round against Fox things may get more interesting, particularly if the natural Clarkeites in the Davis camp who flew there in the heady days of Summer betray Davis, after the first round confirms the momentum against him. But can Ken survive the first round?
33. How do you feel this would work?
a)Try to push DC out in first round (surely he can’t believe he has enough spare votes to give some to each of the others?)
b) Try to take KC through to the third round at LF’s expense and hope (following this treachery) to pick up enough LF supporters to be able to carry KC past DC in the final members round?
If you believe either is possible, KC’s available on betfair at 20s and you should take some. Or is there another way?
Mathew d`Ancona in today Sunday Telegraph writes”Indeed, Dr Fox may be surprised to learn that his conference speech was admired by the Prime Minister,who has told colleagues that he was struck by its range and oratory, if not its ideoligical content”.
Will this help or hinder Fox to get into the next round?
34. well, Juliam, actually no poll could reveal it now and in the future.
So it’s easy not to report any more polls!
The biggest chance for tactical voting is in the second round if Fox is first out. There would be at least 30 right wing votes to split between shoring up DD and voting for the candidate who the right would like to see also on the ballot. They could back Ken to give DD a better chance or may be happy putting DD/DC to the members.
36. Most of LF’s stormtroopers would be more likely to vote for Tony Blair than Clarke. IF KC and it is IF he can survive the first round V Fox, then Davis could look to scoop up LF’s support while simply instructing Conway to take the handcuffs off some of the natural Clarkeites they have corralled into their camp. I still don’t know if they have the balls to take such a terrible risk though.
I think there would be a huge backlash amongst the party in the country if the camps connived to keep Cameron off of the final ballot and succeeded in doing so (which is extremely unlikely in my view).
39. and then if Ken wins, they’ll emigrate!
41. In that case, should I expect to see AH Matlock to assault the Tory Party’s Westminster tearoom?
43 - I shall be there, leading the charge!
44. Interesting days ahead. Still overwhelming likelihood of DC/DD final, but I think the chance of KC crashing out first may have been slightly reduced by Lansley’s decision as I think he would have been unlikely to have come out publicly for KC if he felt he was certain to crash out first, but we shall see I guess then.
44. I’m already picturing the newspapers main headlines: “60 years old Tory from for Beaconsfield leads Westminster mobs” “Derek Conway asks asylum to the Campaign Group. Dennis Skinner refuses becuase he doesn’t match the “working class” criteria”
40 - Are there enough natural Clarkites in DD’s camp ? Conway, Malins, Maples, Mitchell, Paice, Taylor, Knight all voted Clarke in the final rould last time, six of them after backing DD until he went out.
40 Anon. I think we agree it’s unlikely and extremely risky. The difference is, I don’t think it’s even possible. For DD to do this step 1 is to knock out LF. Step 2 absorb LF’s supporters and knock out DC. Step 3 go to the members up against KC having (apparently) lost momentum. I just don’t think he can take such a big gamble. At least I hope he doesn’t - if LF’s knocked out first I lose money!
44 - I think it may be more a matter of sticking to form, Anon. Lansley backed Clarke last time and would clearly back Cameron if KC were to be eliminated. This endorsement does not represent anything new for Ken on last time, it is simply a reaffirmation of support from four years ago. I don’t think it’s terribly significant or unexpected. Did you catch the snippet in D’Ancona’s Telegraph piece this morning that alluded to an ongoing survey of undecided MPs that the Telegraph were conducting? He didn’t mention significant details, but he basically said that all the movement among the undecideds that they were tracking was either to Cameron or Fox, with very little to either DD or KC.
46 -”Sixty year old Tory” - I like! You can be my publicist for such flattery, Andrea.
50. When you become MP, you could appoint me as your assistant for foreign affairs!
51 - I’m too old to be an MP now, I’m afraid. I would much prefer a peerage, which would be much less of a lifestyle change for a pensioner like me.
51 Andrea. More like Asssistant for Affairs
Jack W can be Minister of Propaganda, particularly with regard to non-existant West African traffic management issues.
52. You are never too old to do something! but let’s go for a peerage. Lord Matlock of Stoke Poges!
53. Jack, I meant assistants for Affairs with foreign people
54 AHM. I think I might be too busy with that portfollio over the coming weeks !
BTW I might recommend you for a Jacobite peerage - you could become Lord Matlock of that Ilk ! ….. Andrea on the other hand is just of that Ilk
56. What’s your views on DC launching an a claim to the throne seeing as he’s can trace back his family line to Henry VIII. Is it time to fight against the act of settlement?
56 - Jack - should be interesting. Do let me know when you’re ready, I’ll be sure to wear my wellies and mack that day in hopes of not getting any on me.
Having seen yesterday’s story about DD, I am now wondering about a possible dirty tricks campaign - against Davis.
The answer to the question “As Shadow Home Secretary, do you think that a major political party should be led by someone who has taken Class A drugs?” was met with “I think if … well it is a breach of the law, so if it was recent, the answer would be no.”. Good answer, I thought - all of the unsubstantiated Cameron insinuations have been about his time at University.
Elsewhere, he is asked “should politicians give a straight answer to a straight question”, to which he answered “Yes” (what other answer could you give? “No”? Or refuse to give a straight answer?)
This is blown up into a front page story accusing him of an attack on Cameron!
As Cameron’s camp has, as two of his strongest supporters, MPs who are past and present columnists for the Times and Telegraph respectively, it does tend to make one suspicious.
It could, of course, just be another example of media looking for a line to meet their predefined story - but this is not the first time, by any means.
59.”As Cameron’s camp has, as two of his strongest supporters, MPs who are past and present columnists for the Times and Telegraph respectively, it does tend to make one suspicious.”
He has a strong supporter who writes for the Guardian too.
59 - Alright Andy, but what about the memo that has been brought to light that DD wrote 18 months ago instructing Conservative MPs not to respond to the sorts of questions he said Cameron should answer on C4 yesterday? How does one square that particular circle? I don’t think you can and that it’s just hypocrisy and a touch of panic on DD’s part. Looks like a case of ‘living by the sword and dying by the sword’ to me.
57 woody. I’m largely indifferent to the Tudors. So we’ll repeal the Act of Union, place a suitable Stuart on the Scottish throne or by tanist a suitable cadidate
…… then the Tories will win a GE !! and you can pack the House of Hanover back to Germany ….. btw I note said mob are having one hell of a car boot sale at Schloss Marienberg at the moment !! £25M in 4 days 
Mike, I entirely agree with your scepticism of the Communicate poll. But poor methodology is not the reason that it will have little impact. The Cameron bandwagon only began to roll after the egregious Luntz’s focus group aired on Newsnight, and his methods owe more to
Mesmer than Gallup. It will be ignored because it does not reinforce the ’story’. As has been remarked, it is all reminiscent of ‘94. Cameron has already been voted leader by the media.
What we have witnessed over the past two weeks is a case-study in manufactured consent, (cf Oborne’s remarks on interpretative communities). From Cameron’s audience with the Dirty Digger to Luntz on Newsnight to Irwin Stelzer endorsing Cameron in the next day’s Sun,
momentum was created that swept up the more ovine members of the media (Nick Robinson, I salute you). Not a conspiracy: a coincidence of interest - far more powerful and less likely to unravel.
The ’story’ is that the Tories have found their Blair and any news that contradicts this can be expected to fall flat.
If I were DD I’d just make sure I got into the final. Two months is a lot of time for the press to get cracking on DCs past activities, even if they have to make them up.
I don’t believe these polls for a second.
Desperate as they are Tories will think very hard before electing someone who might give the LDs a chance to make them look like hypocrites, and Labour a chance to make them look soft on…..
5-No
61 -AHM, did Davis say that Cameron should answer questions on drugs? Or did the papers just say that he said it? The reporting has been very generalised.
66 - He said that ‘politicians should give straight answers to straight questions’ but it is insulting to one’s intelligence to think that people didn’t know exactly what he meant in the context in which it was said.
59,
Andy totally agree.
Watched Platell and Morgan yesterday.
Dont think David Davies could have answered in any other way.
He was repeatedly asked to give a sraight answer, which he did.
Any shadow Home secretary in the same position, regarding class A drugs,would have to say, if it was a recent event,and the person in question, had breached the law.
Then it would not be possible for them to lead a major political party.
The last few comments are all so much bilge - I’m a Fleet Street journo, and I know that many of the writers reacting positively to the Cameron phenomenon - Alison Pearson (today’s Torygraph), Mary Ann Sieghart - would not do it unless they meant it. Cameron just has that (JF) Kennedy factor, drugs or no drugs. Likeable, approachable, optimistic. Three things the Tories have NOT been for years.
Any anti-Cameron agitprop from Labour or (especially) the Lib Dems, can be dismissed as fear and anxiety vis-a-vis someone who might well prove a real threat. Anti-Cameron guff from Tories can be dismissed as the usual Tory schizophrenia and masochism.
Barring revelations that DC snorted coke off Jordan’s breasts last week, he should and surely will make the final two. If he doesn’t the Tories can say goodbye to another eight years.. and deservedly.
Incidentally I did charlie with guys in their early twenties (fifteen years ago) who are now in top Tory circles. At least they paid, like gentlemen. The strong rumours of coke taking in New Labour circles (especially around 97) are less edifying.
67. I thought that he said “Yes”. The interviewer said “Should politicians give a straight answer to a straight question”. I’m not sure what else he could say.
70 - He should have said ‘I am not going to comment on any of these scurrilous allegations or anything relating to them’ if he didn’t want to be drawn into a dirty tricks row. That would have won him my respect, if not my vote.
71 - Agreed. Morgan/Platell are hardly Premier League inquisitors. Either you bursh them off, or blather about general drugs policy until they get tired.
7′. he could have said “it depends on the question”.
69. Any toffeewombleing going on as well?
Are we already saying that DD should accept that he has lost and pipe down for the sake of the party?
75 - Certainly not. He is entitled to fight on as long as he things is reasonable, I just want him to do it cleanly and in a spirit of fair play so that we can all put this behind us and work together without rancour on 6th December.
73,
He could have but the question was very specific.
“As a Shadow Home secreatary do you think a major political party should be led by someone who has taken class A drugs?
Put the boot on the other foot and Labour were in oppostion.
it would nearly be the end of the world for the tory media, if a shadow home secretary did not answer the same as davies.
The Mail, having initially lined up Platell as the new Lynda Lee-Potter, has apparently decided that Allison Pearson is to be the new Lynda Lee-Potter.
What a pity the New Statesman dropped Andrew Martin’s Class Conscious column in favour of a new one for Platell - it should have been the other way round. All Platell offers is witless ‘kiss up, kick down’ vitriol interspersed with sycophancy towards those who might be in a position to give her more TV work (or blokes she fancies). There’s also the tiresome obsessiveness of her animus towards Wayne Rooney’s girlfriend and Cherie Blair.
I know a lot of people here (including myself) have their pet hates (including Johann Hari and Y A-B) but at least our put-downs are usually either funny, inspired (or both).
Actually, having pondered the question for a while, I think that a better answer would have been “Yes - as long as it is neither offensive or intrusive”
79 - Andy: That sounds good to me.
57- I don’t understand this. As I remember my history Henry VIII had no grandchildren so nobody can trace their ancestry back to him. This isn’t like one of those internet genealogies that go all the way back to Noah and Adam is it?
Why are the 54/37 and 29/69 figures thought to be good news for Cameron? I don’t see it that way at all:
1. These are conservative supporters, not conservative party members. Surely voting members of the party are more well…conservative.
2. Will this issue gain Cameron any votes? I think not. But on this polling it may cost Cameron as much as 30/40% of the support of the people who would have supported him. Even a few percentage might be crucial.
I’m not a conservative so my views won’t matter in this contest but I hate the idea of drugs and I hate the modern culture that says oh everybody does it don’t they. In my opinion Cameron, who is putting himself forward as a serious candidate for PM should have denied it if untrue but if true have admitted it but repented and made it clear that it was very wrong.
Supposing DC and done a little embezzlement, or a little assault or a little taking and driving away? Would this have been brushed aside? The danger is that this looks like a case of somebody well off flouting a law that the plebs get locked up for.
If the tories elect DC in full knowledge of this issue then they can’t complain if their opponents seek to take full advantage of it. Historically the tories have always attempted to claim the moral high ground. It was the impression (and in some case more the the impression) of sleaze that had a lot to do with them being kicked out in 1997. A tory party that elects a leader with this hanging over him has (yet another) serious weakness, in fact very much a self inflicted wound.
81 - I think it may be Henry VII rather than Henry VIII.
“Barring revelations that DC snorted coke off Jordan’s breasts last week, he should and surely will make the final two. ”
That might gain him votes!
83 - Sean: Forgive me for being repetitive, but having been firmly undecided thus far, may I ask if a clear preference has emerged for you as this week’s balloting approaches?
I’m not going to decide till I’ve been to the hustings.
I’m looking forward to those - they should prove very interesting.
The revelations r.e DC add a whole new meaning if he asks a constituent to ‘drop him a line’:wink:
However, if it were revealed that Cameron had snorted coke off Jordan’s breasts, then he would get my vote. He would be a worthy successor to the eighteenth century Tory leader Bolingbrooke, whose custom it was to participate in sex orgies in Hyde Park.
87 - What revelations are those, Patrick? Or have you been reading different papers?
88 -
- Mrs Cameron might not approve.
I’d take my hat off to anyone who could enjoy such a moment with Jordan:D
89,I’m jesting,my friend;personally I feel the gutter press are living up to their revolting reputation;even though I’d sooner eat worms than vote Tory,I think the ‘lynch press’ are becoming more and more disgusting:surely the incumbent Labour govt could encourage a voluntary code of conduct-no,sorry,that sounds so naive,but you can sense where I’m coming from
77. The “it depends on the question” should have been his answer to the “Should politicians give a straight answer to a straight question?” question.
92 - Andrea; unfortunately, any answer that didn’t start “Yes, …[insert qualifier(s)]” would (in my opinion) have been viewed as “not giving a straight answer” and could have generated ridicule.
Your answer is valid and (in my mind) acceptable; the press would probably not find it so.
I hate to say this but I’m going to have to defend the tabloids. Taking class A drugs is different from the odd spliff - anyone must understand it. Also I do feel that it’s one thing for Cameron to take the fifth on whether he has taken drugs and quite another to refuse to answer questions on his policy towards drugs - after all he is running for office so we are entitled to know his policy on home affairs. The idea of a voluntary code of conduct is a silly idea and inimical to the idea of free speech - if politicans run for office they must accept that their private lives are fair game. Such concerns for the privacy of public figures are ridiculous and breed corruption (as we know from the Major years).
Julian 35. “The poll reveals nothing about how Cameron might fare against Brown over several Parliamentary sessions and how the electorate might respond”.
Are there any polls that could? Pollsters don’t expect their respondents to be clairvoyant!
Roger. That’s why, horror of horrors, Tory MPs and ultimately Tory members have to use their judgement. If, as nearly all tories seem to agree, the Party has to change to win, have a wild guess who can best communicate that we really have changed. Last election Labour could still say with some success that ‘it was the same old Tories’. I think Brown will have a hard time convincing the public of that if David is able to lead the Party in the direction he wants. That may not be a sufficient basis for victory but it sure is a necessary one. No change, no chance.
Couldn’t agree with you more Blue Moon. No change no chance! Incidentally I heard that Jordans breasts were firmly Labour?
96. Blue Moon. What policies are members/voters ready to deal with a different approach?
Or do you think it’s only an image problem and the current policies are ok?
97. Roger. I thought Jordan’s breasts were Independent and worthey of 1.8%!
Off topic but a good article by Mary Ridell on the bad taste of the Blunkett story on Channel 4. Sometimes you think the Mail’s as low as it gets and then this frontal attack on disability comes along
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1593395,00.html
99. I read good reviews of “A Very Special Secretary”.
Andrea. This may seem evasive but opinion research has clearly indicated that , even when people agreed with our policies, they reacted against them when they found that they were Tory policies. The first essential task of the new Tory leader is to make the party more attractive again and yes that does mean a change in presentation away from the grumpy old Victor Meldrews that we have often appeared to be over the last decade or so(’and another thing’). That means eschewing childish point scoring and punch and judy politics which people are so sick of. It means putting across a sunnier more optimistic face to the electorate; more Reagan than Nixon, if I may oversimplify. Policies will come in due course and I’ve no doubt there will be significant changes but no one in their right minds would set them out now except in the most general terms. For one thing good ideas will be nicked by Tony. More fundamentally, we won’t get any credit for imaginative new policies until we have changed people’s attitudes to us. Only then will we get electoral dividends from the good ideas that will flow in profusion, not just from David himself, but also from the talent he will, to some extent already has, attracted to his banner.
96/97 No change, No chance was the slogan of John Redwood’s unsuccessful leadership campaign in 1995…. How prescient he was…..
101. Blue Moon, thanks for the reply.
I remember the polls saying that people agree with your policies until they discover they’re yours. So it seems it’s only a image’s problems. In this case the tories would need a PR person, not a leader (Cameron would be the perfect choice).
Another problem is that New Labour usually steals your best policies!
I posted this late last:
The Scotsman’s bit on the David Davis instruction to the Shadow Cabinet not to answer question on drugs has another twist. It says that DC would cut the Labour lead to 3% while KC would be adrift by 9% and DD and LF a massive lead for Labour of 13%. It also claims that DD supporters will desert him for DC ‘if he survives’. Survive the weekend or the first ballot is unclear. The implication has to be the former as it talks of the ’secret ballot’ being the switching point.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2096032005
101 - I agree with your analysis entirely, bluemoon. Aptly put.
104 - Scotland on Sunday’s leader endorsing Cameron is even more difficult for DD. Have you seen it?
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/leaders.cfm?id=2096552005
At the GE in the constituency in which I live the Tories did their usual attack on the Lib Dems re drugs especially in the eve of poll literature to frighten Tory/Lib Dem waverers. It is what I expected and I’m sure happened everywhere where the LDs were the threat to the Tories.
Our Tory MP is one of Cameron’s leading backers. Doesn’t this open him up to the charge of hypocracy? I can think of rational arguements to demonstrate it isn’t hypocracy, but I suspect that the bold print and headlines of the numerous Focus leaflets that subsequently go out will have a very definite convincing message.
62 Jack W I have told you once before that the first Jacobite King of England and the sixth of that name in Scotland abolished the concept of tanist succession, so as a good Jacobite you should abide by that ruling. Otherwise you will be cast out of the Jacobite Fur and Feather Fanciers Club.
106. Max reported it earlier in the day.
Btw, how many people reads UK newspapers?
106,just read the Scotsman on Sunday report;even from my perch on the coast of southern England,I frequently browse this journal on Google.The main point I wholly embrace is that DD looks like a breath of fresh air-and God knows,the right of British politics need that-the more I analyse it,the more I can draw parallels with Neil Kinnock becoming Labour leader when he was only 41:God,I’m feeling a pang of sympathy for a wannabe Tory leader-I’d better see my doctor(or adjourn to my local pub!!):wink:
Perhaps we should book the Sheffield Arena for DC for 8 days befor the 2009 election!!:lol:
106 Thanks. A bit of a killer that because it is all so true. I want to win and the old, tired, halt and lame (in the left foot) don’t seem at all likely to achieve that.
109 - Yes, Max’s post originally drew it to my attention, but I wasn’t sure whether or not Blue2win had seen it.
You can get circulation figures here: http://www.nrs.co.uk
113. ops, sorry, I didn’t see it was a post for Blue2win……I should go to sleep.
Thanks for the circulation figures.
114 - Pleasure.
112,(Usually),the UK public are a fair-minded lot,and at least give someone a fair crack of the whip(sorry,should’nt coin that phrase,just remembered Norman Lamont’s subtenant:lol:)-no,seriously,I reckon that by early December DC will be installed as leader of HM’s opposition,and he does seem to have verve,flair,dynamism-if the economy does sour,he may well make mid-term headway;I still subscribe to the ‘too big a psephological mountain to be climbed in 1 swing-but if DC significantly cuts the gap in seats next time,then maybe,by 2013,who knows?
115. It seesm lots of people read newspapers! The figures of The Sun and The Mail are impressive.
117,but a fair few people(myself included)buy the ‘Sun’purely as a footie mag;as its coverage is good for a tabloid-although not my side politically,the Daily Telegraph’s sports coverage is second-to-none IMO
Maybe Cameron is the Tory Kinnock? Kinnock was only 41 when he became leader after all!
117 - I have daily print subscriptions to the Telegraph and The Times, and I read the Guardian and Indy online to keep an eye on the opposition. Can’t really be bothered with the tabloids most of the time - filth.
119.and although it goes against everything I’ve believed since I was 13 at the time of the miners strike,part of me would smile for DC if he did succeed,as IMO its the greatest injustice of my political experience that Neil Kinnock never was PM-so a small part of me would smile for a youngster (albeit very strained were it a Tory!):lol:
120. I buy only a daily. I read the main articles of another couples of them online.
I read the local weekly paper at a bar or in the library (I catch a couple of other newspapers there, but I don’t go more than once a week), but it’s pretty useless (last week main news was the a man came out as gay and run away in Brighton).
The main newspapers here have a circulation of around 700,000 copies. I don’t know how many people actually read them.
119. Blair was only 41 when he became leader as well…
122. One thing I like to do is to confront international coverage of British papers and Italian papers.
The one about the German elections was very different, especially the Merkel-Schroeder debate: it seemed that the journalists saw two different debates.
British politics coverage in Italian press isn’t great, but today I saw in my paper something like 10 lines about Cameron and the drug affair.
74. If he was toffeewombling back in the 80s, that would of course be an entirely different matter.
I’d just like to repeat my allegation of before. Back in my misspent youth (i.e. five years ago) I knew a drug-dealer who said he made regular trips to Millbank during the ‘97 Labour campaign. He was delivering Chan, i.e. Hooter, Bronson, you know what I mean.
The deliveries were large, and to a surprising number of people.
It looks like no one is any more interested in your allegation than they were before Sean. Most people are here to talk about politics.
Looks like David Cameron’s price is continuing to tighten… Are there any odds on him being PM??
127. They’ll soon open a market on him being the next King, the next Queen, the next Pope and the next leader of China and people will bet on him
I find Sean´s comments totally irrelevant and uninteresting, Roger, because I don´t have a clue to what he is talking about. I understood he was a writer of sorts, and would have expected him to communicate in plain English.
I’m getting quite enthusiastic about the prospect of Cameron. He’ll certainly make the Tory party look better and make the Labour party less complaisant. There’s a good chance that he’ll get politics back to the two party system we used to have by and drag the Lib Dems off the fence. The one bet I would be prepared to put a huge amount of money on would be that if Cameron becomes Tory leader the Lib Dems will lose seats at the next election. (And I would expect it’ll be to both Tory and Labour).
130. To be back to a 2 party system isn’t essentially a good thing. More parties, more ideas, a more active political system!
130. Concur, LD’s will lose seats. The issue for them is that if there vote share went back to ‘97 levels on a Uniform Swing then they would be reduced to about 25-30 seats….
I know what he’s saying but I’m just bored of this Sunday Sport type tittle-tattle that some people find interesting.
O/T just got back from a gig with Rob Newman & Mark Thomas. Thought provoking and very funny.
One line from tonight in keeping with the thread - why would anyone put something up their nose than had been through someone else’s stomach and out of their a**e ? Left wing comics now making fun of potential conservative leaders for a more permissive attitude to hard drugs than themselves! Interesting times.
131. And Turnouts at historic lows…
I see a betfair market has opened on the first elimination. Cameron and Davis both at 25’s - worth a couple of quid.
130 - I agree. Imagine a situation where professional liberal types felt able to vote Tory again and abandoned the Lib Dems - not necessarily in significant numbers, but here and there. A small LD > Tory swing would see Labour regain seats like Manchester Withington and Chesterfield.
Anyone care to venture an opinion on how a DC-led Tory party would go down in seats like Edinburgh South? Would his liberalism be a plus or his toffiness be a minus? Is social liberalism going to attract any sort of support in Edinburgh (or Scotland in general)?
135. it could go even lower…..
Andrea. There’s a paradox in British politics. Hardly anyone wants a hung Parliament but that’s all a vote for the Lib Dems can possibly offer. I don’t think a strong third party necessarily strengthens politics. I think a strong opposition does.
137. The USP with Cameron is not political per se but presentational. It is not a case of social liberalism etc but of that concept that has eluded the Tories for years….Credibility!!
139. If people think that Libdems represent them better than the other parties, they should vote them. It’s how democracy works.
139. Hear, Hear… Voting for the third party is usually done as a protest against the govt of the day. This usually has the effect of keeping said govt in office. Hence Labour can get 35% of the vote and a comfortable majority. It also helped to sustain Thatcher with landslides in 83 and 87 as the anti-Tory vote was dissipated between Labour and the Alliance…
142. Is it the fault of people voting the third party or is it a fault of the electoral system?
137 - but those same voters would still be more likely to vote lib dem to keep out labour in those seats. Labour would have to get back those who voted lib dem instead of them, which would all depend on how Brown was seen relative to Blair and how things such as Iraq/ID Cards etc play out.
Roger, John…. or rather, ladies, ladies… readjust your knickers. I’m just pointing out that YOUR parties are also known to partake of a little Chang, Peruvian Flake, Icing Sugar, Bolivian Marching Powder, Nosecandy, Snow, Godspeed, Chuckledust, and Bazooka.
Therefore any criticism of Cameron for the same could be regarded as a trifle hypocritical.
143. I would say it is an effect of people voting in particular ways and a consequemce of how the electoral system interprets that. ‘Fault’ hinting at a concept of right and wrong results which is too left-wing for my blood!!
142. I agree it helped keep Thatcher in office but I’ve always had a sneaking suspicion that those who voted Liberal in the ’80’s actually were happy to have Thatcher but were too embarrassed to vote for her! As for the last election I’m pretty sure that if there was any danger of Labour losing a lot of Lib Dems would have jumped ship
Having just wasted half an hour reading through this thread I am disappointed at the level of discourse we seem to be “enjoying” these days.
(i) We’re really not interested in the inuendo of a failed novelist.
(ii) There is a ridiculous level of wishful thinking being exhibited by Tory and Labour posters, reaching almost Lib Dem proportions. Cameron will only make a difference if he drags his party to the centre, a direction they show no inclination towards going in. The Lib Dems are not going anywhere in a hurry. Get used to the idea.
148. You heard it here first the Lib Dems are going nowhere….
“I agree it helped keep Thatcher in office but I’ve always had a sneaking suspicion that those who voted Liberal in the ’80’s actually were happy to have Thatcher but were too embarrassed to vote for her!”
I also partially share that view - I suspect that many Alliance voters, especially in the SDP, would have abstained or even voted Conservative, if it had been a straight choice between Foot/Kinnock and Thatcher, which is why I think the common whinge by people like Hattersley that the SDP ensured the continuation of Thatcherism is overdone.
148. I’m touched! Bless! That you should follow my literary career so assiduously!
Seeing as you have expressed this close interest, can you - or someone - PLEASE think of a title for my new book. It’s all about my misspent youth, threaded through the concept of a man seeking the ultimate pleasure. It’s a follow-up to my first volume of memoirs, Millions of Women Are Waiting to Meet You, which Bloomsbury are publishing next May. I know all my fans on this site will want a copy, so go visit amazon now!!
Anyway, re this new book and its title. The best I’ve come up with so far tonight (and I have a deadline) is:
My Struggle With Boredom
and
Bring Back Duelling
Any good? Anyone got anything better? Charlie, darling? (that wasn’t an offer of coke, by the way)
144 - too confused by this post to respond coherently. You’re probably right. I think this just illustrates that our superficially very simple system is in fact remarkably complicated. And (from a politics-as-a-spectator-sport perspective) hurrah for that!
145 - A bit of disingenuous logic here. If I disapprove of something that (say) the Labour government does, that does not necessarily make me a Tory. And whether it does or not, it does not follow from that that I do not disapprove of certain things that certain Tories say and do. (Flip all this around to apply to Roger.)
On the point itself, I personally mildly disapprove of drugs, but I am in favour of a more liberal attitude towards them. And - knowing how common drugs are in this country - especially amongst the younger half of the country, and especially amongst those who work in careers where a measure of performance and self-certainty is part of the job description - it would be surprising if certain drugs were not well used amongst the younger generation of politicos.
Wishful thinking by Labour supporters…..! How much better could they be doing? You say “the Lib dems aren’t going anywhere”. I don’t know whether this was a deliberate double entendre but I couldn’t agree with you more!
Where are they trying to go?
151 - Go And Get A Job (I Hear McDonalds Are Hiring)
151 - Sean - coincidentally, as I read about your struggle to pithily summarise the masculine struggle for pleasure, the Macc Lads come on my stereo. I feel certain that somewhere in their vast back catalogue are the words you need. Maybe ‘Chips and Gravy twice’ or some such.
154. Hmm. Not a bad title, bit long though. But keep em coming!
(Sorry I was referring to 148)
The Times has a piece asking to 12 Tory party members about their views on this saga and Davis doesn’t come out well from their opinions.
I really start to feel sorry for him. He never gets one right!
152 - I was just suggesting that voters are less likely to desert the lib dems for the tories in labour held seats. The intention being to stop the election of a labour MP.
159 - Possibly. What would Lib Dem voters rather have nowadays? In the eighties I suspect they leaned more toward s a Tory government, in the nineties and since towards a Labour government. Do you think they would now tactically vote against Labour now?
(Can Hieronymus Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Hump and Find True Happiness-now you can go to bed Sean)
I also feel sorry for Davis. It wont be long before people start asking what chance did the son of a single mother brought up in a council house have against an Old Etonian married to aristocracy in the Tory Party!
161 - Blimey, someone else has seen it! Anthony Newley at his worst I’m afraid (and I think it’s Humppe)
160 - The voters you referred to originally were lib dem/tory waverers so I was just following tha