Everyone got the invitation, but the Tories had omitted the dress code

ConHome has published its latest members’ survey. Its (admittedly unscientific) findings into respondents’ recollections of floating voters at the last election have reopened the debate about why the Conservatives didn’t win. In a combative piece, Janet Daley insists that the results ‘stand the modernising argument on its head’.

These findings look more inconclusive to me. 85 percent of respondents were told that the party and its leadership were ignorant of ordinary concerns, supporting David Davis’ insinuations that the party is out of touch with the common man. There is firm statistical evidence in which to ground these fancies: the Tories did poorly among C1 and DE voters (defined as the ‘flourishing families’ and ‘educated urbanites’ and ‘progressing professionals’, the backbone of working Britain) both at the general election and the recent Oldham East by-election. The party will have to seduce these voters if it is to win next time.

I don’t accept that those voters would have been swayed by the old religion; and it is telling that they either stuck with moribund New Labour or stayed at home. Rachel Sylvester goes further, arguing (£) that Andy Coulson’s emphasis on ‘red-top grit’ muddied Cameron’s modernisation strategy. Up to a point: these voters have clear concerns about immigration and crime and Cameron should do much more to allay them, and he can do so in accord with his modernising instincts.

But, incontrovertibly, the Tory campaign was confused. The ConHome survey supports that analysis. 81 percent of respondents were told their party was ‘for the rich’, despite the welfare reforms and compassionate conservatism. 78 percent were told outright that the Tories haven’t changed much; 97 percent were told that Tories were the same as the other parties; and 77 percent of floating voters admitted that they didn’t know what the party stood for. Alarmingly for the Tories, the confusion continues. 100 percent of Tory members tell me that the egregious Big Society was impossible to sell on the doorstep, and extremely vulnerable to the charge of being a ‘cloak for cuts’. And now we learn (£) that its author, Steve Hilton, seeks to disown it, fearful that it is damaging the party. Well, better late than never Steve.

This all suggests a failure to overcome entrenched preconceptions, indicative of an ability to communicate. That should influence the appointment of a new communications director; not in favour of a ‘cor blimey guvnor’ candidate, but someone who will successfully disseminate government strategy.