Commenting on this post, Tim Montgomerie writes:
Now Tim’s general point about “broadening” the party and its appeal is well-made and there is, as always, some perceptive stuff in his original post. But since he also wrote:Did you actually read what I wrote Alex? Not once did I call for an end to the new Toryism. I advocated blending new and old messages. I did not suggest “banging on” about immigration but as voters’ number two issue it should be part of the mix. I didn’t even advocate talking about Europe at all. I said our three main messages should be (1) the economy, debt and regulating the banks; (2) immigration and crime; and (3) protecting the NHS and the vulnerable. Your readers who read what I actually wrote will get a very different sense of my argument.
If only the party leadership had simultaneously talked about Europe, tax, crime and immigration alongside civil liberties, protecting the NHS, helping the poorest people of the world and candidate diversity we would not be in such an opinion poll pickle now.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in