Michael Gove MP: The Change Alliance

This is Michael Gove's third blog from the Cameron campaign.

The news that ten MPs who’d supported Liam Fox are now backing David Cameron is important not just because it gives David the backing a majority of MPs but also because it signals the breadth of the emerging alliance for change across the party.

During the earlier stages of the leadership campaign some observers tried to pigeonhole the candidates into boxes marked Left and Right. Not only was the exercise unfair to the complexity and depth of all the candidates’ positions, it also glossed over what I considered to be one of the most interesting dynamics in the race – the overlap between the Fox and Cameron positions and the coincidence in the agenda of many of their supporters.

I write as a Cameron supporter from the beginning of this race who also admires people who’ve been in all the leadership campaigns (indeed I am a particular fan of Nick Herbert, David Willetts, Greg Clark and Paul Goodman to name just a few of DD’s impressive supporters).

But nevertheless I found myself increasingly admiring, and agreeing with, many of the arguments put forward by Liam and his supporters throughout this race. Readers of this blog will know that I was delighted to be able to support the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s drive to put human rights at the heart of Conservative Foreign Policy [see PS to this post]. But in my view there is a broader convergence, beyond simply my views, which marks out the Cameron view and the Fox approach as closely aligned. Both candidates have been particularly energetic in arguing for a changed approach to the way in which the Conservative party responds to the new challenges of the 21st century. And I’d like to list just a few below.

(1) Foreign Policy should be Idealist not Realist.

LF’s position here is clear, brave and admirable. DC has also made the need to engage ethically with the rest of the world central to his foreign affairs vision, supporting the Fox view that Tory foreign policy should embrace a commitment to tackling terror, tyranny and the lack of freedom across the globe, not just in those nations where the UK has an “historic” interest. This view of Foreign Policy, which treats Darfur as a more urgent issue even than Zimbabwe, both speaks to a new generation of idealists and is true to the party’s best traditions.

2. Let’s not wobble on the war.

LF deserves great credit for his robust defence of the liberation of Iraq in his party conference speech. It was brave and right. DC has made the case for staying the course in his speech to the FPC and emphasised the folly of opportunistically sniping at the Government when it runs into trouble, but is basically trying to do the right thing. Of course Blair has made many mistakes in Foreign Policy but both LF and DC see the danger in giving any quarter to those who wish the worst on the West.

3. We need a more meritocratic Britain. But that still isn’t enough to heal our broken society.

Both LF and DC have emphasised that our society needs to be more open to talent. But both have also shown they understand that there are many in our society whose needs go beyond just an extension of opportunity. LF’s focus on the mentally ill, and DC’s emphasis on special needs education, are just two examples of their campaigns’ focus on the requirement to help those whose vulnerabilities hold them back from full participation in our society. LF has won support from charities and voluntary bodies for his championing of those left behind. And DC has a long track record of supporting those organisations dedicated to helping the marginalised live with dignity. Some Tories have, in the past, given the impression that all we need to do is remove the barriers to success for “the hard-working” or “strivers” to do our duty by society. LF and DC recognise that social justice demands a commitment to provide support for those who are genuinely disadvantaged.

4. Don’t be afraid of the market.

Both LF and DC recognise that the younger voters have grown up knowing how market mechanisms work, and accepting the role they can play in improving our lives. DC, unlike DD, recognises that resources in higher education will only be allocated rationally if we accept a more market-based system building on top-up fees. Its an insight most younger conservatives instinctively grasp. DD’s opposition to tuition fees, like Michael Howard’s own scepticism, reflects a generational gap. LF is on the same side as that gap as DC. During his time as party chairman he identified a huge potential reservoir of support for the party among those younger voters who had grown up knowing, understanding, and appreciating the liberating power of markets. But these Britons’ experience of the Tory party over the last few years has left them with the impression that we are opportunistic and crusty rather than dynamic and open. Both DC and LF have tried, in their approach, to directly address this problem.

5. Modernising doesn’t mean going soft – it means recognising how the world has changed.

Of all the leadership contenders only LF and DC wanted to properly modernise our European policy. Both recognised that the historic link we had with the EPP was just that – historic. We need to be able to make the case for pro-market, pro-nation state, Atlanticist policies clearly in Europe as well as at home. The challenges of the next century – from global competition to international fundamentalist terror – will not be faced effectively if we defer to positions adopted by continental politicians who are trying to defend an outdated settlement. Modernising our party means modernising our relationships in Europe – something both LF and DC instinctively understood.

Of course there are many people who were attracted to Liam’s candidacy who won’t vote for David Cameron. Their platforms overlap, they’re not identical. But the nature of the overlap is instructive. Both the Fox and Cameron candidacies have been attempts to move the party out of traditional trenches into a closer engagement with the modern world. They’ve both combined a compassionate approach towards the most vulnerable in our society, and across the globe, with tough-mindedness about international challenges. And I believe that a party which makes effective use of both their talents will have forged a powerful alliance for change.

Comments

[buxtehude]

Dear Mr Gove,

This is very good stuff. I could almost be converted to your 'directions'. This site has argued a lot about 'directions' v policy. Of course those of us who are sceptical of David Cameron (and DD) realise that you cannot make detailed policies today. But we are also sceptical that 'directions' really mean anything at all - they seem such useful ways to please people without giving them anything certain.

When we know so little about the candidate - when we haven't seen him go through any difficult situation, when we haven't seen how he hangs on to his beliefs and his purpose when he is preperly tested - then that matters. If we suspect that he'll ditch one belief for another if it seems momentarily useful, then we can't make do with mere 'directions'. Such things make for good articles in newspapers (or blogs), not a firm foundation for making a choice.

Could you address this? If I knew that Cameron would boldy, couregously, hold fast to the 'directions' in the way that I like to interpret them, looking to depart from themn merely to make tactical adjustments in the face of electoral reality, I would be onside with him like a shot. If I knew that about him, I would consider him a much better bet than DD.

But I don't. Can't you help out here?

[wasp]

Its certainly true that Fox and Cameron provided the most interesting and lively campaigns.

Neither Davis nor Clarke produced anything remotely thought provoking.

Buxtehude is the drugs issue not an example of CAmeron sticking to his guns under considerable pressure - personal not political I know but still an indication of character?

[malcolm]

As always a well put together argument Mr Gove,problem is, I'm not sure I believe it.
I really hope DC does not go down the Blair route of trying to be all things to all men.It may be initially electorally successful but it leads to extreme disappointment pretty quickly.
As you say the issue over the EPP may prove to be enlightening for us all.I hope DC will prove his mettle over this.

[John Smithson]

"Its certainly true that Fox and Cameron provided the most interesting and lively campaigns."

So consistency isn't among youir virtues! You denounced the Fox campaign from day one.

Do Cameron supporters just agree with whatever he says?

[wasp]

Thats not being inconsistent I disliked Fox's campaign from day 1 and i still do, that does not stop it from being thought provoking or interesting.

Its just that to me he was too much in the mold of George Bush and would have been a disaster. He is also smarmy and I don't think people were warming to him.

Having said that the broken society element of his message should certainly be taken on.

[John Smithson]

"Thats not being inconsistent"

Yes it is. You consistently bad mouthed him and everything he said.

In fact it's not just inconsistency, it's hypocrisy!

[henry curteis]

The reason the Cameron camp want to draw the Fox camp in, is that the membership are rightly feeling deprived of the choice they wanted to vote on - the Fox/Cameron one not the Cameron/Davis one.

The only reason Davis is still being dragged round on his hopeless campaign is that 10 or so Cameron MP's voted for Davis in the final round to block Fox.

Fox should have been given his chance, and Conservatives know it and feel it. If we have a Cameron leadership then we will have to make the most of it. Cameron though has a big task ahead of him to resolve this perceived injustice. I don't think the Davis faction will trouble him or the Clarke one, but the Fox faction still has legs.

[buxtehude]

Gove: "DC, unlike DD, recognises that resources in higher education will only be allocated rationally if we accept a more market-based system building on top-up fees."

I don't agree that tuition fees are part of a market-based system. They would be if we had the American system, but we don't. we have top-up of the Government's miserable system - or bail-out. I think this is a good example of where supporting Blair's muddled solutions is dangerous. Do it properly or don't do it.

It's NOT true, and an unedifying sidewsipe, to say that DD suffers a 'generation-gap' because he opposes tuition fees. Most people - including young Tories, I think (though neither of us can prove) - think (wrongly, in my view) that the state should pay for the whole lot. You can argue against DD on tuition fees, but the 'generation gap' bit is cheap, and you can't complain when the other guys have a go at you in similar fashion!

[loyal_tory]

The tone of Michael Gove's comments are welcome but run into a problem when he says "Don’t be afraid of the market." Unfortunately even at this late stage, David Cameron has still to show this sentiment is true in his case. Supporting Labour's tuition fees is no substitute for new Tory ideas making the case for lower taxes, education vouchers and universal health insurance.

Indeed, David Cameron's campaign has worried many bright minds in the party who are not afraid of the market and believe its power can be harnesssed to deliver the economic growth, compassion and high quality public services voters want to see. By the same token as a reader of this blog Michael cannot have failed to notice that many party activists are supporting David Cameron precisely because they believe that the party should be afraid of the market, thinking it will cost the party votes.

[michael]

Bux, I think you're right about the generation thing - On the doorstep it was often older people who told me it was right that students contribute towards their higher education.

The more politically aware took great pleasure in pointing out this was a populist ploy which was incosistent with Conservatism.

[michael]

"Michael [Gove] cannot have failed to notice that many party activists are supporting David Cameron precisely because they believe that the party should be afraid of the market, thinking it will cost the party votes."

No, we're afraid of the Party articulating a message which continues to define us in the minds of voters as market/money obsessed.

We need to demonstrate to voters that quality of life through quality public services is the end Conservatives seek to achieve and that the market is just a means to that end.

[loyal_tory]

Not talking about solutions to the problems of the public services is not going to solve the party's credibility problem with the public. It takes a clear and coherent plan to show voters that we care and we are serious.

[michael]

"It takes a clear and coherent plan to show voters that we care and we are serious."

No, it will need a clear and coherent plan if the media are to take us seriously.

Voters will judge us on what we say, how we say it and how often.

[Pete]

An observation on Michael's comment that DC's support for university top up fees indicates a greater acceptance of free market mechanisms shared by a younger generation which I feel is rather more driven by a desire to build bridges to the LF right rather that a genuine belief:

Whilst DC supports top up fees for universities (which given their fixed levels have little or no consumer pull impact on resources allocation although this could be resolved with greater flexibility), he opposes voucher type payments in healthcare (which given flexible pricing and a greater variety of provision have a fairly good resource allocation impact).

For DD the opposite is true.

My observation is that this reflects the respective priorities and personal experience of the candidates. DD, having achieved from a modest background via a grammar school and free university sees education as a vital ladder to create a meritocratic fluid society, and wants to minimize barrier to access. David Cameron, again from first hand experience with his son values the NHS and doesn't want resources to be transferred to the private sector, even if in co-payment to treat NHS patients. This also reflects a pragmatic view that, unless the Conservative Party demonstrates a clear commitment to universal healthcare, the current proxy for which in the eyes of the average votes is support for the NHS, the Party will not win an election.

Conversely it also implies that DD doesn't trust either the market mechanisms which have grown in the US (needs blind admissions with significant bursary/scholarships) or the hunger and judgment of prospective students from modest background to make them willing to borrow to go to University.

Similarly it implies DC either doesn't value the role of the private sector in increasing the efficiency in healthcare delivery, or judges that pragmatically it is not an argument wise to make.
Frankly the generational divide argument that DD's generation doesn’t value market mechanisms is hogwash - arguably the converse is true. Michael Howard’s generation were at the heart of the Thatcherite decade, the excesses of which (in presentation if not, longer term in policy) prompted the reaction towards a more timid consensual direction advocated by DC.

What I suspect the reluctance to endorse tuition fees (which all of us lucky enough to have gone to elite universities will know are heavily lobbied for by our such institutions) really reflects is a concern that a 17 year old prospective student from a modest background is not a sufficiently well informed or experienced consumer to abandon to the free market when facing life choices such as whether to borrow to go to university.

The internally inconsistent policy direction of both candidates highlights the reality that the party lacks a coherent political philosophy, (which may be a good thing) and faced with a pragmatic need to regain voter’s trust is taking a timid, if perhaps appropriate, approach in certain areas. Whether this approach will stand the test of time, time will tell. It does however mean that leadership and discipline will be required in policy presentation as there is no instinctive answer on where the party should stand on a range of issues.

[loyal_tory]

"Voters will judge us on what we say, how we say it and how often." This is surely correct. But the Cameron approach of taking care how we talk about things is no substitue for a policy committing us to real change.

[Coxy]

Strong agreement with the comments about Fox above. His campaign was the only one which concentrated on policies rather than persona (although he has plenty of character too).

Fox hasn't endorsed anyone yet, so of course DC is out to court him. However I think Fox deserves a very senior post (deputy? shadow chancellor?) just on the strength of his campaign - whether or not he publicly backs DC.

[michael]

""Voters will judge us on what we say, how we say it and how often." This is surely correct. But the Cameron approach of taking care how we talk about things is no substitue for a policy committing us to real change."

Talking a language which engages people isn't a policy substitute - it's a necessity for articulating a narrative which is based on policy. The policy being based on values and a strategy which is consistent over the next four years.

[wasp]

I've not been hypocritical. Fox was not suitable as leader for a whole load of reasons. Yet at the conference I still went to see him talk about international development because I agree with him on much of that subject.

Disagreeing with a candidate does not mean disagreeing with everything he stands for, we are both conservatives.

[Michael McGowan]

Quintessential Gove eloquence but I share Malcolm's scepticism at 9.28 (we can agree on some things, Malcolm!).

Tuition fees are a case in point. Their unqualified support for Labour's central planning of higher education suggests that Cameron and Gove are instinctively hostile to using market methods to deliver One Nation solutions. This is a big fault line between them and the likes of Davis, Damian Green, David Willetts, and Nick Herbert, who have seen and experienced the social damage done by 50 years of Butskellite incrementalism.

[buxtehude]

"The more politically aware took great pleasure in pointing out this was a populist ploy which was incosistent with Conservatism." The principle of tuition fees is I agree in line with Conservatism. Supporting Labour's really awful hotch-potch on the basis that it contains a grain of principle is just wrong. It is just another tax on the middle class to pay for what was previously free.

I fully support the principle that people should pay for their higher-education, within some system that makes it easy for everyone to do this out of their increased earning power later. And that the universities should then be allowed to charge whatever they need to maintain excellence (some will go for scholarly excellence, others for good quality of training, whatever).

But this is NOT what Cameron is supporting when he supports Labour's policy! It is unConservative to support rubbish legislation which adds to the burden for middle-class parents but does not solve the universities' funding problems, nor produces a genuine market but yet again distorts it.

I really worry that Cameron doesn't understand the difference between good policy and bad policy. Or, worse, that he does understand, but thinks the difference isn't important.

[wasp]

Just to point out the new system of tuition fees does not tax parents it taxes students because they pay after graduation.

Although at my salary it is due to take me 334 years to pay off my student loan so whether or not they would see much of the money is a moot point.

Its also worth noting that the new system only fills a small part of the funding gap, there is still not enough money for universities, we have to either 1) dramatically reduce the number of places 2) introduce private universities or 3) raise taxes.

Top level education for the best is crucial to meeting the challenges of globalisation. Cameron et al may agree with the principle but the policy still needs changing.

[michael]

Sure Bux. the points I made are just my initial thoughts on this. I'm open to persuasion on what could work better. My objection is that once again, Davis continues to box himself in, before any ordinary Party members have had a chance to influence policy.

[loyal_tory]

"Talking a language which engages people isn't a policy substitute - it's a necessity for articulating a narrative which is based on policy. The policy being based on values and a strategy which is consistent over the next four years." is only half the story in a political party.

Sane Cameron-sceptics agree that Tory language needs to change. But so do Tory policies. Unless we offer a convincing answer to how we would reverse the twin problems of underperforming public services and an underperforming economy, we won't be credible. But we simply do not know what policies he favours.

In 2009 will he want to campaign for supply-side tax cuts to boost growth, a voucher system for education, universal insurance for all in healthcare, or will he want to campaign with policies which are closer to the Labour Party and the Lib Dems (and which the media likes), like the environmental policy he announced recently?

New language must be part of the equation. But if the policies are, like 2001, not that different from the Labour Party, or like 2005, a bit different on public services but not that different on tax and not promoted (only 3% of the voters thought we planned to cut their taxes), then we will lose. And we will deserve to have lost.

We need to figure out the new policies and then find the best language with which to sell them. If we don't have convincing policies that give credibility to new language voters will conclude we are all style and no substance (sound familiar?) and stick with the devil they know.

[michael]

Oh I agree completely, but for one leadership team to define policy details now rather than policy direction, is to exclude a vast section of the Conservative Party from developing and agreeing exactly what those policies should be.

Davis is too busy chipping his policies into stone tablets.

He's defining himself as the 'substance' candidate. He's defining himself in response to Cameron not in relation to voters.

It's a huge tactical error, because in so doing, he is painting himself into a corner.

[Innocent Abroad]

Lovely, beautiful, wonderful. And all especially touching as we can be 100% sure that team Cameron had NOTHING to do with the Standard's Fox smears, when they still thought that the numbers in the House meant they would end up facing the far more formidable Fox in the country. Wonderful, beautiful, lovely. And of course, touching.

[malcolm]

I think you'll find Innocent Abroad that the 'smears' as you call them about Fox came from Fox himself.I do understand that in the Commons that day Derek Conway was blamed for them.For once,it appears,Conway was innocent!
Lovely ,beautiful etc etc post 'though.

[Innocent Abroad]

You're *terribly* well informed Malcolm as to who did what, and who didn't do what. Of course I suppose there's just the faintest chance that you don't know for sure what you so confidently assert - namely that there was no Team Cameron involvement. But I admire your faith.

[loyal_tory]

One of the problems with this leadership campaign is that one candidate is offering too much policy detail and the other is not offering enough policy direction.

I think that a run-off between Liam Fox and David Cameron would have been more enlightening and closer (and most members would have prefered it), which is a big argument for having winner-take-all open primaries where MPs cannot engage in tactical voting!

All that said, Davis had to get Cameron to start to show some direction (here Davis has as at least had some limited success) and apart from getting more detailed himself I can't see any other way he could have achieved that. Some in the media, notably The Sun have applied some pressure, but they are in the minority.

[henry curteis]

BRING BACK THE MONARCHY

If Fox and Cameron are close on policy and if we accept that part of Michael Gove's view, there is much evidence to suggest that their tactical approach to applying their 'common' policies would be very different.

Fox would worry less about the 'media narrative', and the 'look' of his policy proposals, and be more determined to do what he believes to be right, while Cameron is showing a strong inclination to put media presentation in pole position in the style of Blair.

This is becoming like 18th century politics all over again. Then it was the King who was the primary force in politics, with whom Prime Ministers had to negotiate and keep in agreement with their actions. Now it is the media that plays the royal role or at least will do if Cameron becomes another Blair-like media serving party leader.

We have gone from monarchy through aristocracy and democracy. We are now becoming near enough now a mediocracy. Next stop the return of the monarchy as the only way to stop the media from becoming the centre of all decision taking? That or Liam Fox?

[henry curteis]

BRING BACK THE MONARCHY

If Fox and Cameron are close on policy and if we accept that part of Michael Gove's view, there is much evidence to suggest that their tactical approach to applying their 'common' policies would be very different.

Fox would worry less about the 'media narrative', and the 'look' of his policy proposals, and be more determined to do what he believes to be right, while Cameron is showing a strong inclination to put media presentation in pole position in the style of Blair.

This is becoming like 18th century politics all over again. Then it was the King who was the primary force in politics, with whom Prime Ministers had to negotiate and keep in agreement with their actions. Now it is the media that plays the royal role or at least will do if Cameron becomes another Blair-like media serving party leader.

We have gone from monarchy through aristocracy and democracy. We are now becoming near enough now a mediocracy. Next stop the return of the monarchy as the only way to stop the media from becoming the centre of all decision taking? That or Liam Fox?

[loyal_tory]

We need a "change alliance" which includes a change in substance as well as style. Few, if any, sane Tories disagree that speaking out on behalf of those who are let down by public services, struggling financially or opressed around the world is the right way to go. And surely a majority now agree that a more balanced and constructive opposition is the order of the day.

But--are you reading this Michael Gove?--substance means supply-side tax cuts, education vouchers and universal health insurance. But David Cameron won't tell us if he plans to change the Tories' substance this way.

How long will it be before we are a "change alliance" on substance: the day after the leadership election in 2005, or the day after the general election in 2009?

[buxtehude]

The problem with the 'change' imperative is, "what are you trying to change"? Of course I agree that the Conservative Party needs to change, to get better and to win. But I also think we need an idea of how to change Britain. To listen to some of the un-modern modernisers (the ones so removed from real life that they get excited by the idea of 'the modern'), you'd think that what really matters is to change the Tory party to be as like Britain as possible.

But that's absurd. The point is not to mirror society but to improve it. To think that votes can only be won by pandering to focus groups is to undermine the true and noble purpose of politics.

[buxtehude]

Having said that, I do find it interesting that Mr Gove and his colleagues stand up for tuition top-up fees (I disagree with their arguments but admire their principles on this) yet say that we must by vague about tax, reform of public services, and most of the other big issues, because the voters will be frightened (and on this I half-agree with their arguments - in campaigning terms - but recoil from their negation of principle). Why is it on tuition fees we can be anti-populist and specific, but not on anything else?

I only half-agree on those 'stay vague' arguments because I think they work only superficially. Voters grow to admire and support people who say clearly what they mean, fight for it, win the argument, get it done. And anyway, it's the right thing to do. I do not believe they will vote for a second Mr Blair. They will prefer Brown next time round.

I note that Cameron has said it 'rubbish' that he is the 'heir to Blair'. And yet he knows very well that he told a lot of people precisely this at a breakfast in Blackpool, with quite a few important witnesses. What's all that about?

[malcolm thomas]

As regards 'perceived injustice' in the Fox camp against Cameron's team (10.20 am), read this week's Private Eye. It identifies the source of the charming 'Gay' innuendo story about Liam Fox in the Evening Standard as coming from Cameron's campaign.

The 'change alliance' proposed by Michael Gove presumably finds it acceptable to play the black arts against Fox one week and then try to talk him in the next. I think that there are substantial differences between the two camps as regards acceptable behaviour with media tactics. Can we have another denial of impropriety from the Cameron camp please which we can try to believe?

[Simon C]

The key factor that distinguished Liam's campaign from all the others, including DC's, is that he grasped the fact that the Conservative Party needs to engage with the British people in a convincing way about how it will change their lives and their country for the better (see my Platform piece on the Fox Factor for more on this).

By engaging with the British people in that way, the Conservative Party will of necessity change. The driving force, though, is our agenda for Britain, not our agenda for ourselves. An agenda for ourselves will never convince.

The contest is the poorer by Liam's absence, although I am glad that his agenda is still alive and influential.

As a Fox supporter, my choice at the moment seems to be between a known quantity and an unknown one.

DD is the known quantity. I agree with a lot of his ideas. However, his tactical decision to go into the depth of detail that he has is, I believe, a real mistake. He can set out a clear direction, without committing himself to numbers that may or may not be relevant come the next election. And BTW - if grammar schools are such a good idea, why only 20?

More damaging, though, is the way that DD has failed to generate any sense of enthusiasm or excitement outside his core supporters. I fear that he is also a known quantity in that we know he has not managed to inspire or enthuse the party, let alone the wider electorate. His risk-averse strategy bears a large part of the blame & the conference speech made it worse for him. He has failed to build on his early lead & momentum. He seems to lack the ability to inspire which any great leader has. I am not sure that the electorate will be able to imagine him as Prime Minister. The Party would probably make further progress under his leadership - but would we get back to government?

Then we have DC. Not only is he an unknown and untested quantity, but it seems to be his campaign strategy that, in terms of belief and direction, he should remain unknown as far as possible. The political justification for that is that the numbers are so greatly in his favour that he doesn't need to commit himself to anything at all & find himself boxed in later.

The problem is though, that people who would like to be able to support him enthusiastically find themselves unable to do so because of this deliberate vagueness ("tactical vacuousness" as one senior Conservative has described it). Buxtehude (who I think started the summer as a firm DD-ite) has illustrated this brilliantly.

Also worrying is that on the rare occasions when he does set out some detailed policy, it does seem rather light. His environment announcement this week, which did not contain any serious analysis of our future energy needs and sources, is a case in point.

His support for marriage is welcome, and I hope that he will be robust about the EPP. But we need rather more than that.

His tactics mean that he is asking the Party to take a gamble. He may turn out to be a brilliant punt - or he may be a latterday South Sea Bubble.

He also needs to nail the "Tory Blair" gibe. Blair's political genius lay in working out what leadership the British people wanted post-Thatcher, and getting there first. We need to work out what leadership is required post-Blair, and get there first. It won't be Blairism re-cycled.

Whilst he is right to recognise the reality that we won't be able to dismantle everything this government has done - we will need to build on some of it - DC needs to make clear what parts of the Blair legacy he will build on, and how he will improve it, and, importantly, what parts he will scrap.

Question Time provides an opportunity for both men to prove me wrong. I hope that they do. I really don't want to be in the position of saying "Don't blame me, I wanted Fox" in 6 months' or - worse - 4 years' time.

[malcolm]

What a truly excellent post Simon.Sums up my own thoughts of the past two weeks even though generally we come from opposite wings of the party.
One thing I hope both candidates do however is to make some sort of commitment to honest government as Ken Clarke tried to do.A top priority of any leader must be to engender some faith in politics in this country amd would go some way to showing a clear difference between us and the current gov't.

[Simon C]

Thanks Malcom - and agreed that restoring public confidence in politics is a key and immense challenge for everyone engaged in politics.

[buxtehude]

Simon C, I think you have the DD/DC conundrum exactly. Not an inspiring choice, actually.

[buxtehude]

Malcolm, I agree, though somehow I doubt that Cameron will do that. KC's appeal for a return to decent standards in government was, for all its nostalgia, the most forward-looking and refreshing thing in this entire contest. But DC doesn't believe in that, I'm sure of that. He and his team are absolutely fascinated and star-struck by the Blair Project. If only they could break free from this almost adolescent fantasy.

[buxtehude]

Quiz: who said, in October 2004:

"I can't hold it back any more; I love Tony!"

[loyal_tory]

Michael Gove said it. But that doesn't mean he's not a conservative. I just think the strategy he has bought into for reviving our fortunes is half wrong (and half right).

He is right to argue that we need to transform the culture and personality of our party. But the idea that lower taxes and public service reform are not central to our revival as a serious contender for government is just plain wrong. Even David Cameron's undoubted skills will fail to make us relevant to the voters if we adopt it.

[buxtehude]

That's right, Loyal Tory, it was Michael Gove. Post Kelly. It was even the headline to his Times column.

"I can't hold it back any more; I love Tony!" - Michael Gove, The Times, Oct04

I just don't think it was very helpful, especially at that particular time. I don't say he was deliberately undermining IDS right at the moment when IDS was having his trickiest time. Nor do I say it was un-Tory.

Michael Gove has many admirable qualities. But his exuberant admiration for Blair is not one of them.

[henry curteis]

If Michael Gove admires Blair, and all he represents - then presumably he liked the Evening Standard innuendo against Liam Fox which Cameron's crowd fed to them (Private Eye editorial).

If I were Liam Fox I would be feeling extremely nervous when such as MG turns up with an olive branch as in his above piece. All this DC sweet talk of changing the party's image, forming a team of all the talents etc looks a bit limp when actual DC practice seems to be media war of the dirtiest kind.

[henry curteis]

If Michael Gove admires Blair, and all he represents - then presumably he liked the Evening Standard innuendo against Liam Fox which Cameron's crowd fed to them (Private Eye editorial).

If I were Liam Fox I would be feeling extremely nervous when such as MG turns up with an olive branch as in his above piece. All this DC sweet talk of changing the party's image, forming a team of all the talents etc looks a bit limp when actual DC practice seems to be media war of the dirtiest kind.

[wasp]

I doubt Michael Gove does admire everything Blair represents.

But he did support the Prime Minister's position on the Iraq war, as did many bloggers on this site. Does this stop them from being Conservatives???

[buxtehude]

I agree, Henry - we need some clarity on the nature of Team Cameron's appreciation for Blair. I think it's a real weakness. It's not clever at all. They should tell us exactly why a Cameron-led Conservative Party would not be Blair Project Part 2.

[buxtehude]

Wasp, are you seriously suggesting that the line

"I can't hold it back any more; I love Tony!" Michael Gove, The Times

indicate merely "support [of] the Prime Minister's position on the Iraq war"?

[loyal_tory]

The open adoration for Blair displayed by some Cameron supporters in parliament is in marked contrast to their coyness and carefully constructed positions on more pressing issues in British life, like taxes and public service reform. It's rather like the way Michael Gove illustrates his commitment to market principles by supporting a Labour Party policy: tuition fees.

If members can't get straight answers from Cameron on issues other than climate change they are going to have to read these tea leaves and come to a view of where his priorities lie from this sort of comparison.