Lord Saatchi gave a speech stating that elections don't need to be won from the centre ground as all main parties seem to think. Is he right? Iain Dale thinks not. He says it is essential to pitch for votes from the centre ground or you are destined to lose an election. But is the location of the centre ground as certain as it is claimed to be?
The centre ground is claimed to be where all three main parties are currently pitching their tents. I'm not so sure it is actually there at all.
The current 'centre ground' happens to coincide with the tent positions that are acceptable to the media - BBC, Murdoch and so on, and to the consensus view of civil servants and so on. I'm not so sure the current 'centre ground' represents the popular view.
People are far more concerned by crime than are the media or government departments, for example. The average voter would be in favour of much harsher punishments for criminals, for example than are acceptable to the cultural elite that controls our bureaucracy.
The BNP is able to attract large numbers of supporters by promising to deal with street crime effectively - and by that they mean corporal punishment.
I think the centre ground now simply means backing the policies that have been established by the cultural marxist elites over the last 30 years - the elites that control media, the EU, the judiciary and the civil service. These people are well dug in and don't want any change. Any political party that proposes substantial change is demonised or their leaders are assassinated (thatcher/IDS etc).
Ordinary people are sick of it all, and would want to move on to effective measures to deal with crime and other aspects. That's the story I hear as I talk to folk. Am I the only one? I doubt it. It's just that Cameron does not want to enjoy the same fate as IDS and Thatcher and so he's playing another strategy for dealing with the very powerful forces that hold Britain in their grip.
People do want change - urgently - but no politician dares to offer it. The BNP do but are hopelessly unhinged on race and religion to be a serious help. UKIP should move towards a stronger position on crime - increasing prison populations, corporal punishment and so on. They might be amazed at the results.
The media dictates what the centre ground is at the moment, not the voters.
Hazel Blears in The Times today attacks Cameron for being surrounded by Old Etonians. Labour's attack will bother men.
It's the follow up to the 'big fist', searching after a male support base.
Cameron is weak up North and with men compared to women. He needs to broaden the Party's public image away from Public School and South East accents. Female and black candidates is all good and fine, especially if they are the best ones. Women voters are better at looking at the person they will vote for. Men are tribal.
The Francis Maude Chairmanship seems to be all about creating a clique and a style which will not resonate with male voters. Cameron must bust the Party open to a broader respresentation at the top. Blair and Prescott knew what they were doing in terms of electoral appeal, mixing up the classes.
Brown's a weak force in comparison, although electorally he's playing Cameron's weakness as being too monocultural as his strategy. Conservatives must broaden their appeal regionally and across classes. The middle ground strategy has its place, but not in exclusion to other quite obvious steps that need to be taken.
The modernisers are a clique in the end of the day, and should be mixed in with others.