sjm - quite right. Graeme eloquently describes my own feeling about the casinos but however bad they are it's no excuse for voluntarily reading George Elliot! I am so glad I'm not a socialist, as the idea of the Labour party of Keir Hardie etc, a party whose founders saw development of the workng masses through edcation and social mobility as its core concern, should try and transfer wealth from the poor to the rich through 24 hour drinking and gambling is truly shameful.

I suppose it gives the lie to the idea that it is the right that dominates the blogosphere. 'Google millionaires' are bound to be predominantly Democrat because it's the sort of job where earning squillions makes them feel guilty and rather than do something useful like help others they hand money over to the latest faddish lefty cause.

James I know you're young but you must remember Mrs Thatcher? I think she still qualifies as a cult of the individual for many! Welcome back to the Party by the way. P erhaps you could try thinking up every day one new thing you can do to try and ensure a Conservative government. This would take you're mind off worrying about what's bugging with the internals of the party and concentrate your energy and enthusisam on kicking this truly corrupt and disgraceful government out of office.

'You're' above should of course be 'your' but the sentiment is clear

Yes - so long as the good ideas keep coming; Always tricky to decide when you should leave the crowd wanting more!

Graeme is spot on - marriage/civil union provides a legal basis for a relationship and that's where it should stop. If people want neither of these things it is up to them. Whatis actually required is a strengthening of the fiscal benefits of marriage compared to cohabitation. Whilst on an individual level cohabiting is what some people want it seems odd to me that the provably most stable and successful relationship for the raising of the next generation of taxpayers doesn't get any recognition in the tax system. PS: not sure why hmmm thought Graeme and any othe childless gay couple costs anybody money but just so you know Graeme, some of us married heterosexuals think you gay guys and girls do a sterling job earning more money on average than heterosexual couples and paying loads of tax, which helps puts my children through school; so thank you.

Chad Why aren't you standing as an Imagine candidate in Bromley? If you want to waste money on standing in a seat and getting 50 people to vote for you that's up to you. However, I would have expected a bit more from you than trying to tie yourself in to Eric Forth's legacy. Also, no offence, but you consistently use 'conservative' rather than 'Conservative' where appropriate on your BromleyChislehurst site which grates. Also, just because you comment regularly on this site I'm afraid that, just like me, you speak for no-one but yourself. I am surprised you feel writing on CH needs to be part of your mini-manifesto. The way it's written it implies your views are sought out and influential rather than being offered for free and no more influential than anybody else's.

is this supposed to be funny? Not only is it supposed to be, it is. How William maintains his high standard is a mystery to me but CH would be poorer without the movie reviews and I trust I'm in the majority in thinking that;

James M - All political parties have clubs of donors who get to share a stale croissant in some Thistle Hotel with uninterested members of the shadow cabinet / government. The people concerned hope to influence policy. This shouldn't be confused with a secret funding operation run out of Downing Street where the Chairman of the Labour Party is persuaded to sign papers declaring there is no financial link. This is done openly and under public scrutiny. It is simply trying to appeal to the vain. I will send a donation to CCO as I want some of my money to go to parts of the country not represented by tories at every level. I wish you'd cut out the 'We' bit as well. You're not a Conservative remember, you're going to oppose us at the next local elections.

It sure looks that way Richard These reuslts are from the YouGov survey of two weeks ago. Todays numbers are Con 38 (+1) Lab 32 (+1) LD 16 (-1) Ming Factor 8% see him as the best potential PM, demonstrating that even 1/2 the people claiming to be LD voters don't want their man to be running the country.

Why are these numbers different to the ones reported on PoliticalBetting? This confirms the overall message that DC is having a clear and sustained impact on people's willingness to listen to the COnservative message. Still a long way to go but for me the best news is the fact that we have turned the tide against the LibDems. When the policy groups report I hope and trust we'll have some radical and exciting policies with which to take apart Labour. Provided we can consistently poll above 40% on YouGov by next summer I think we have a chance to break every electoral record going at the next GE (except maybe John Major's for votes received).

The relatively large movements in the polls over the last few months show that there is general steady progress but that Labour are still in there and fighting. We have a long long way to go but at this time it is about the government messsing things up and the Conservative leadership showing the Conservative party is relevant. Next year will be the time for concrete policies. People trust us more on the NHS because they have seen the disaster of Labour policy that sounded so sensible and are now willing to listen to more radical ideas. That's what the policy review groups must be about if we are to start being thought of as ready for government. Next year we need to be polling above 40% but the current position is very promising. Labour have a core vote around the 30% mark so talk of 15%+ leads is highly unlikely.

If Wade is invitng the Camerons anywhere it shows how worried she is about her job. It would seem Murdoch is preparing the groundwork for a switch back to the tories (Kelvin gets a column and Blunkett gets the heave-ho is another clue). La Wade may well be prepared to live with the change to keep hold of her stonking great salary but let's face it, her heart wouldn't be in it.

James M - normally you criticse DC for not being conservative enough, to the extent you left the party and intend standing against a Conservative next year. Now you want DC to break his clear pledge and stay with the Europhile EPP. Make your mind up! Cameron got his very large mandate in part because of this pledge. Many have doubted it would be achieved and I think it's a clear sign that DC can help the Conservatives maintain a broad coalition. I hate the fact that my local Association is saddled with (Dr)Caroline Jackson as one of our MEPs; hopefully this might encourage her to think about her position. It will also allow loyal MEPs such as Roger Helmer to be back where they belong, in the Conservative grouping in Brussels. Once the new group is up and running I think other parties will want to express ther real opinions and not be tied into a federalist grouping just because it labels itsef centre-right. This is a brave venture but if done properly could be very popular with those that care about being in Europe but not run by it.

MPs have the rather important task of running the country - surely we want the brightest and best people to be attracted to the House? If only they had this responsibility! MPs are paid enough judging by the number of applicants for the position. It would be no bad thing for the average wage to be the basis of the salary structure. One problem with a professional political class is they start wanting to introduce more and more law with no real awareness of how this affects the real world. I didn't agree on some things with Eric Forth and totally agree with Graeme Archer's comments above but he was right to try and reduce the amount of legislation being passed.

As one of the guilty posters on Guido I should say I think CH is a very valuable resource. Francis Maude explaining to conservatives via CH his thoughts on the A list and so on are really good. I do place less faith in the survey results than I did initially but that's only gut feeling. I think there are many frequent posters who seem to have only one interest and that is to slag off the party leadership and turn every thread into a debate on the evils of the EU (which are legion, but shouldn't be the backdrop to every discussion). I know this is a site independent of the party but it is seen as a place to find out what party activists feel. Anybody reading a Goldie, James Hellyer or Christina Speight post would think civil war is alive and kicking in the party when it isn't. A particluar problem I think is crazy posts from the likes of the William who believes elections are decided by a cabal of secretive figures in Brussels. For CH to be taken seriously this sort of thing should be stopped. William Norton's Film Reviews are of course to be encouraged as is Chad; provided he promises to change his advert soon as the funny ones are much better.

If we are the largest party in in parliament the LimpDums will vote for measures they aprove of anyway (repealing of ID cards etc) as they are always going on about 'principled opposition'. On radical economic changes we would be far more likely to win support from UeberBlairites than the LDs. If any LD wakes up and realises they've joined the wrong party they can join us. One day the inherent contradictions in Libdemmery will cause them to split and I suppose this is a good way to help that process along.

Much more of this and The Sun will switch back to supporting the tories!

well at least 'leaving the EPP' group didn't get voted the biggest international challenge. Everyone knows economic competitiveness and security are the main challenges. Both of these tie directly in to environmental policy. I think DC is moving the party into a position where we can talk to the public about how to compete effectively and how to protect ourselves without being seen as 'same old tories all they want to talk about is economics and the army'. I also am a panel member who fully agrees with Ed R's comments above. I think you have drawn a false conclusion from the data; If you wanted validly to draw the conclusion you have you should have asked a different question.

I don't think I've ever agreed with one of Goldie's posts but he's dead right on this one. The LimpDums are a left wing party. A few of their MPs have expressed a desire to move their party towards Liberalism - they've done this as the party has spent time trying to be taken as an alternative to the tories. They aren't; they're a coalition of the confused and the even more confused. We can destroy the LD presence in the South and South West by being positive about ourselves and our vision for the country, not by pretending LDs are left wing tories.

Slavery - didn't cease to be profitable, that's one of those urban myths we all rely on. This is why it was used by the nazis and Stalin, and is still used in India, China and various other parts of the world (such as the UK sex industry) Arms Industry - if we regulate it by international treaty then that should provide more opportunities for our own defence suppliers. Realpolitik plays its part; Saudi is horrible but capable of reform, Zimbabwe is horrible and needs a new government. A bit of AND theory needed here not dogmatism on either side. I really can't beleive people can post here and criticise DC for being against selling arms to regimes who use them in order to prevent a change towards democracy in their own country. No wonder we were 'the nasty party' for so long.

William's right, the John Redwood policy of explaining LD policies is guaranteed to stop most people voting LD. As for defections; it makes for good parliamentary sport and is a signal that things are going our way, but most defectors don't really add anything (except Churchill of course). Laws, Clegg and co are over-rated in my opinion. They just look better than the pygmies they're surrounded by. The only MP of theirs who accidentally joined the wrong party is Vince Cable, who is probably up to being a decent backbencher. Most of them though would rather be swimming in a tiny muddy orange pond than risk the giant lake of turquoise blue next door.

Henry - this is a genius idea, proper accountability - This programme costs £x equivalent to Y licence fees, fantastic.

Sticking with the BBC - this is good politics from Cameron. Not only does the tory party need to fight for the small voluntary/ business sector in order to encourage new players in a range of markets it also needs to promote much wider media ownership. The BBC dwarfs all other media players and is extending its reach way beyond what is reasonable for the remit of quality public service broadcasting to be met. This could help ensure the BBC are aware that the Dear Leader and the Dour Leader aren't the only people they need to court; it might help swing The Sun back behind the tory bandwagon (minus flame haired, flame tempered Editrix) and anything that indicates that the structure of the BBC WILL change has to be a good thing.

Chad - are you going to abandon the hordes of working class voters flocking to Imagine after seeing your ad on Guido? All just for the chance to wear a dress and flippers?!? As you will probably get 1 out 3 (EPP withdrawal) would you settle for a Tory Radio interview, where you admit DC kept his promise and has improved the chances of conservative policies being enacted? Obviously the dress would be optional, but a summer frock can be very liberating (according to my wife) :-)