Driving change

Mark Stockwell

I wasn't attempting to give anybody a kicking, and you're getting close to the truth here - but I still think you're missing the point somewhat. There's simply no use putting loads of detailed policy out there until you have shaped the terms of reference. Labour talking about marrying free markets and social justice was brilliant because it did precisely that (and incidentally used a word, 'marrying', which pressed all the right buttons at the same time). People had been 'primed' to think of the Tories as 'the nasty party' over a period of years (well before Blair came on the scene in any serious way) because the Tories failed to counter this impression - indeed, some seemed positively to revel in it. The Tories got away with it in the 1980s because they could portray Labour as being soft on crime, soft on national security, etc. So Blair had to show that they had changed. But he didn't do that with policy, he did it with appeals on the level of principle - abolishing Clause IV and replacing it with the new mission statement had nothing to do with policy, it was all a statement of principles; tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime was a statement of principle not policy; education, education, education - principle, not policy; traditional values in a modern setting - principle, not policy; and so it goes on. To the extent that these principles were fleshed out, it was to reinforce the points of principle and what they said about the Labour Party (always - always - contrasting that with uncaring Tories, 18 years of Tory misrule, 22 Tory tax cuts etc. etc.). So if the Tories are going to come out with detailed policies it should only be where they feel it reinforces their narrative about who they are and what they stand for (and exposes what they perceive as weaknesses in their opponents narrative). It may be (and I think is) a good idea to have some detailed policy worked out - in fact having a clear idea what they want to do if they win in 2009 is very important - but in *campaigning* terms it's pretty much irrelevant. I think they haven't yet alighted on quite the right narrative or, if they have, they haven't yet articulated it sufficiently. And that, not any failure to lead the policy agenda, is why they haven't capitalised more than they have on the Government's woes.

Simon

unfunded tax cuts when everyone's worried about a recession. What a brain wave. Almost makes one wonder why the Tories did not try that one in the last three elections. God give me strengh

Simon

unfunded tax cuts when everyone's worried about a recession. What a brain wave. Almost makes one wonder why the Tories did not try that one in the last three elections. God give me strengh

mart

You say "... there are the policies on green and inheritance taxes, which – although stolen by Labour – now do nothing to really distinguish the parties." Ought this to read: BECAUSE stolen by Labour? Now is the time for the Tories to discover an ideology that they can use as a "narrative" (yuck - hate that word) that will thread through a consistent program for an alternative government. Let the dividing line between parties be that one has principles and a coherent worldview, and the other does not. Currently both parties would appear to all intents and purposes to have no abiding principles, and no worldview. People are not likely to get out of their houses and vote for a change unless they think there really will be a change.

mart

Mary: You say "People had been 'primed' to think of the Tories as 'the nasty party' over a period of years ... because the Tories failed to counter this impression". A person's testimony about his own honesty is not likely to be believed. The political parties, as currently constituted, are pretty much honest and trustworthy. But if they go about telling people how honest and trustworthy they are, it will not be taken well. Quite the opposite in fact; people will wonder why they feel the need to say it at all. Far more corrosive, in my very humble opinion, is the feeling that the parties will say and do anything they think the focus groups tell them. Far better to have a view and a plan for government, and to argue for that view and plan. Oh but I forgot earlier to point out, where do the "nasty party" stories gain currency? All the parties say has to be mediated to the public via soundbites in the TV bulletins. Could it possibly be that that this influences what is "the story" concerning the Tories, and furthermore influences the style and content of the Tories' media messages?

Kerry, UK

Cameron trying to emulate Blair with soundbites is toe curling because its so obvious. When Blair used all his soundbites to win back in 1997, number one they were very powerful and resonated with the electorate and number two Blair's style and persona etc was unlike anything we had seen before but after ten years we are wise to it and Cameron seems a poor imitation.

David

As a point, the Tories will never get a 36 point lead like Blair did, simply because polling methods have changed dramatically. It's generally accepted that the leads Labour showed were seriously innaccurate

Mark Stockwell

@mart - Countering the image of 'the nasty party' doesn't mean just saying 'we're not the nasty party, honest' - it means doing just as you say in your previous post and coming up with a compelling narrative (I know, ghastly word, but there it is, we've both used it now) which tackles the accusation and preferably seeks to turn it back on those doing the accusing. What you absolutely must not do is just sit there and take it on the grounds that you don't think anybody will take any notice of what you say. If you let an impression like that gain ground you are effectively conceding it to your opponents. Both they and the voters will smell weakness. Labour didn't counter the idea that it was a tax-and-spend party by not saying anything about tax-and-spend. They turned it round with talk about cutting taxes for the middle classes and lowest earners, and contrasted it with '22 Tory tax rises'. That said something about who they were and what their values were (or what they wanted people to believe they were, at any rate).

Praguetory

We can go higher in the polls if we can focus on being the party of 1. the law-abiding 2. the taxpayer (close to 90% think govt is wasting) 3. the striver Also, Cameron needs to broaden the image of Tories with more working class and regional voices. The solution to this conundrum does not lie in the current Parliamentary party.

mart

Mark (sorry for mis-spelling your name) I agree very much. I would like to observe too, that we are 11 years further on from those days when people were inclined to assume good faith in what was said, and to believe promises in manifestos. 11 years since 1997 have brought us policy by focus group, parties who'll happily (and disingenuously) promise to follow each other's economic policies "for a time", and a consequent cynicism among the public. The only way for the Tories to counter this is to convincingly and repeatedly say what philosophical difference they would bring. People will follow people who actually believe in something. However the Tories would, as they do today whenever they try to say something diverging from a soft leftist view, struggle to get a word in edgeways between the editorialising remarks made in the media, and the "not nasty" voices from talking heads.

Ian C

The way to find a new message based in tax cuts is to open the debate on what government is for - what is it's role? In the New Labour world it is there to do everything, control our lives, spend our money better than us, educate and healthcare us all, with the unintended but very real consequence, that standards are lowered to the lowest common denominator, - the collective over th eindividual. With the message of tax cutting (that anyway cannot be immedite) must be a long term vision of what the role of government is and what we must expect to do and pay for, ourselves. It nees presenting as breath of fresh air, not a simple mathematical equation that enables presentation as cuts - in services that are poor in any case.

TGF UKIP

While agreeing with many of the points made above, what the Tories need is "the vision thing" and instead what they have been getting for the last two years is "the focus group thing." Focus groups will inevitably mirror and mimic the conventional so we've had the Tories telling us they were going to tax and spend like Labour in the interests of "economic stability," they were going to be every bit as PC as Labour, they were going to spend as little on the Armed Forces as Labour and they were going to be even more headbangingly green than Labour. In short they were going to be an alternative Labour Government to Labour and oh yes, they were going to be nicer than Real Labour. The public's reaction to all this has been to be not just confused but downright mistrustful. All this high taxing and spending, being nice to immigrants and criminals, and being vaguely anti American but ultra green and PC did not quite square with who they believed Tories to be nor did it bear any relationship to what the Tories they worked and socialized with believed in. If the Tories are not a party of the Right they are nothing and for the past two years they have expressed no convictions and made no arguments of the Right. The result is that the Tories are now in a very parlous position and, arguably, even worse than Labour when the polling is so close after four such cataclysmic months for the Government. What the Tories need is Leadership and Conviction and a willingness to engage in political argument from a different values perspective from Labour. When the polling gap at this point is between 2 and 8% it's time for some of you guys to ask yourselves some serious questions about your commitment to Dave.