For the Tories, ideological purity means paying the electoral price

There was an interesting post on Peter Briffa's site yesterday, which is not itself unusual since he often posts interesting stuff. What was unusual, and striking, was the error he made.

Now Briffa does not like David Cameron, and takes Cameron supporter Nick Boles to task for an article the latter wrote in the Daily Telegraph. Quoting a Boles phrase about Cameron achieving greater connection with mainstream voters, Briffa caustically remarks:

Which explains why he is actually behind the Labour Party in the opinion polls, presumably.

Well, er, I am sure it would if that were right. Except that it isn't. Cameron's Tories are plainly ahead in the polls and have been for months.

Since Briffa is well informed and intelligent, why does he make this error? For the same reason that Simon Heffer often (as he did in his latest column) argues that the Tory performance has been electorally disappointing. Because they want to suggest that the greater ideological purity that they advocate would be costless. But it wouldn't.

The basic Briffa/Heffer position - that Cameron should not betray basic Tory principles - does not depend for justification on the party's fortunes in the polls. Suggesting that Cameron's compromises are unconscionable is a perfectly respectable position. But these compromises are winning votes and abandoning them will cost votes. You may still then decide not to go along with Cameron, but only if you are willing to pay the price.

Saying that Cameron has not improved the party's poll rating is simply incorrect. And Heffer's more subtle suggestion that the party could be doing better if it was more obviously right wing flies in the face of all evidence.

Those who want the Conservative Party to remain pure should argue that case on its merits (and it does have some). But they should be open about its costs.

Comments

[Peter Briffa]

Daniel,

I have responded thus:

http://publicinterest.blogspot.com/2006/12/its-fair-cop.html

[James Kennett]

Can Conservative voters agree on the "basic Tory principles" that Cameron should not betray? I don't think so. Cameron is definitely not going to ask Conservative Association members to define those principles. One of the comments on Heffer's piece described traditional party members as "Saga Lout troglodytes".

[Paul Dennett]

It's true that the Conservative Party remains ahead in the polls generally, but the back story is less healthy. Over the last year of Yougov/Telegraph (sorry!) polls the percentage supporting other parties (i.e. not Con/Lab/LD) has increased from 8% last December to a whopping 15% at the end of November. This has been a steady increase over the year. Also last month the Best PM score had Blair ahead of Cameron by 28-22, as opposed to a Cameron lead of 28-27 the previous month. This fall was after Cameron's Darfur Expedition and the Polly Toynbee kerfuffle. My point here is that the Cameron strategy of chasing Labour/Lib Dem votes is working on one side but with lots of attrition on the other. The net effect is an increasingly fragmented electorate.

Now, all of this might still deliver a Conservative government next time (but there's a very big "if" hidden in there). The key will be Cameron's own credibility, and as the latest Yougov poll shows, this may be suffering. As Simon Heffer pointed out, since the start of 2005, David Cameron has written one Conservative Manifesto, then thrown it out and embraced a broadly social-democratic agenda, and then next year all these Commissions start to report. If they recommend a return to good old-fashioned Thatcherism, what is Cameron going to do then? Flip another flop? At least Blair's credibility lasted until he made it to Downing Street. Cameron will be lucky to make it so far.

By the way, two words for anyone who thinks Cameron's centre-or-bust strategy is the only way: Stephen Harper.

[Serf]

You are of course correct that David Cameron has made the party more electable.

However, as a right winger, I keep asking myself how far will he go, and what will the pay off be.

For example, anyone that truly believes that Polly Toynbee has something useful to add to any debate, is clearly not going to vote Conservative. So what was the point of that stunt?