toryleadership

David Willetts to back David Davis

He is widely known to have delivered the most intellectually interesting speech of the contest.

Ken Clarke talked about him having been in the back room for far too long and his lieutenants praised him.

David Cameron actively sought his support but David Willetts is now expected to back David Davis imminently.

David Willetts' endorsement of the Shadow Home Secretary will be a critical development in the race and will give Mr Davis' promise to build a Conservative Party of all the talents much added credibility.

Many of the party's more moderate and socially inclusive members will see David Willetts' endorsement as a 'permission slip' to embrace the Davis candidacy.

This is by far the biggest boost to David Davis' campaign to date and I personally hope that Mr Davis will fully embrace David Willetts' message of social reform.

Praise and a £40,000 pensions job for Two Brains Willetts

David Willetts may have won Nick Gibb MP's endorsement at the weekend but news (in tonight's London's Evening Standard) that he has taken a £40,000 consultancy will cause some to doubt the seriousness of his leadership ambitions.  David Cameron and Ken Clarke may be preparing to junk their outside financial interests but Mr Willetts has accepted a lucrative consultancy from Punter Southall & Co to give advice on pensions.  Mr Willetts became one of Britain's leading authorities on the pensions industry when he held the pensions portfolio under William Hague, IDS and Michael Howard.  He may be 'Two Brains' but DW does not appear to have a single-minded focus on winning the Tory crown.

DW's most significant contribution to the Tory leadership race was a speech to the Social Market Foundation early this summer.  That speech inspired this reflection from one of conservatism's most thoughtful columnists - David Brooks.  Mr Brooks, who writes twice a week for the New York Times, contributed the following words to a feature celebrating ten years of The Weekly Standard.  The two Davids' words are worth quoting at length:

"The best description of conservatism's evolution comes from David Willetts, the Tory MP. He tells the tale as a personal journey, but it really applies to Anglo-Saxon conservatism as a whole:

"You start by making your own way in the world and what appeals to you above all is the language of flexibility, mobility, opportunity. It is the economically liberal bit which brings many people to Conservatism . . . .

"Then you get more tolerant as you begin to realize people don't always behave as you expect. You recognize how wide is the range of human motivation and how much knowledge and wisdom is dispersed. You see the market as one way in which all this diversity can be respected. Perhaps you become more tolerant and open-minded. That's the social liberalism.

"Then you have children and you start thinking about the environment in which they will grow up. You worry about how to transmit your values to the next generation. It can feel as if you are fighting a battle against not so much the state as an incredibly crude commercial culture that tells them there is no more to life but consumption. You begin to discover that there are deep ties and obligations across the generations. You notice that your friends who understand this best and live up to it are the ones with the most fulfilled and satisfied lives. In fact they are much more satisfied than the people who are just following the thin freedoms of mobility and choice."

The obvious thing Willetts is saying is that the Burke and Oakeshott side of conservatism is just as important as the libertarian, free market side, if not more so. This thought has obviously occurred to a lot of people all at once. (Read Rick Santorum's book, which treats the family, not the individual, as the basic unit of society.)

But the underlying point is that conservative writers are now spending a lot more time trying to understand the substratum of human behavior. Rather than treating human beings as economic actors and lauding the entrepreneur as conservatism's paragon, they are discussing the values, assumptions, and mental landscapes that are passed down unconsciously from generation to generation. Why do some groups succeed and others fail? Why are some people raised in environments that transmit one set of values while others are raised in environments that transmit another set of values? This is what Thomas Sowell, Charles Murray, Samuel Huntington, and even Bernard Lewis, in their different ways, have been writing about.

Everybody knew the complicated and politically treacherous subject of inherited group traits was always down there. Now it is pretty much unavoidable."

The Old Europeans target Cameron and Willetts for Clarke

"We have got two perfectly good one-nation candidates in Cameron and Clarke and although they aren't going to make a pact they ought to be sufficiently well advised to work out by the time of the party conference which of them is ahead.  The one who isn't should withdraw."

- Lord Hurd in today's FT

Chris Patten was giving a similar, but more subtle, message on this morning's Today programme.  Clearly doing the work of Ken Clarke (who he formally endorsed) Lord Patten said that David Cameron had enormous potential to be a great Conservative leader and Prime Minister.  "But not yet" is the unspoken hint.  Join Clarke now - is the message - and inherit the Tory crown from him (soon).  The Hurd and Patten interventions were a clear echo of Michael Heseltine's attempts of mid-August to encourage DC to endorse KC.  An aide to Lord Heseltine was then reported as saying:“It is not like Gordon Brown waiting years for Tony Blair to give up the top job; Ken is 65 so he is not going to be hanging around for much longer."

But David Cameron is not the only leadership contender in the sights of the 'Old European big beasts'.  Earlier in the week Ken Clarke was admitting to being "a big fan" of David Willetts.  On Today Lord Patten praised Mr Willetts as parliament's finest policy thinker.

Is a Clarke-Cameron-Willetts ticket possible?  Davids Cameron and Willetts are Eurosceptics and certainly don't share Ken Clarke's Iraq views (which are condemned as unwise in today's Times).

Lord Patten attempted to make the case for Ken Clarke by leaving listeners to Radio 4 with two (he hoped) leading questions:

1. Which candidate does Labour fear most?
2. Which candidate does the public like most?

The Blairites respect Cameron; the Brownites respect Davis

Matthew d'Ancona authors a fascinating piece in today's Telegraph. Mr d'Ancona is one of the very few Conservative commentators with good links with the Labour party. Today, he uses those links to provide his readers with clues to what Messrs Brown and Blair think of the Tory leadership contenders. These are his main conclusions:

(1) David Willetts' "superb lecture to the Social Market Foundation in June - calling for a good society as well as a flexible economy - is the one that has commanded most respect amongst ministers". Labour insiders don't expect Mr Willetts to inherit the Tory crown but they fear that his ideas might be adopted.

(2) Ken Clarke is still respected on Labour's benches but few think he can win.

(3) Tony Blair's camp most respects David Cameron. Mr d'Ancona: "One of the Prime Minister's closest confidants told me recently that "Cameron is just like Tony when he was that age" - 38 - and predicted that he would mature into a similarly dominant figure. A Cabinet ally of the Prime Minister said that the young Tory's championship of children with special needs showed that "he understood what his party has to do to regain power." Tony Blair became Labour leader aged 40 and Prime Minister at age 43.

(4) In the Brown camp it is David Davis who appears the more "dangerous foe". ""A Tory who was raised on a council estate by a single mum and talks like an ordinary person when he goes on television is trouble for us," one of the Chancellor's allies told me. "It presses a lot of buttons."" It would be an overstatement to say that Gordon Brown fears Mr Davis but they think that his "Tory idealism", compassionate litmus test for policies and outsider status is more insightful than Mr Cameron's pragmatism.

Mr d'Ancona concludes:

"How reassuring it is for lovers of political tradition to see that - even on this matter - the Blairites and the Brownites simply cannot bring themselves to agree."

Should David Cameron be old pope Clarke's young cardinal?

Some time ago I was on a BBC Radio programme with Tim Allan, who used to be Alastair Campbell 's Downing Street deputy. He was of the clear view that the Conservative Party had been foolish not to choose Ken Clarke in 1997 or 2001. He was the one Tory politician who had had the potential to worry Labour and to restore the party's reputation for economic competence, he argued. Mr Allan was unsure if Ken Clarke was now too old but thought that he still might be the Tories' best hope.

Attempting to counter such doubts, Ken Clarke's campaign aides are promising an 'old pope, young cardinals' regime. Given other things that Labour insiders are saying a 'young cardinal' (to Ken Clarke, David Davis or other possible winner) may be a good option for David Cameron. Some Labour insiders reportedly believe that David Cameron will probably be the Tories' next Prime Minister - but in eight or so years' time. They see him as the Tory with the skills and public touch to reconnect with middle England. They do not think he is yet ready for the testing job of Leader of the Opposition and has too many gaps in his knowledge and experience. If he was to become leader now they think he could be ruined and that, of course, would suit them nicely.

There is Westminster village speculation that Paul Baverstock, Director of Tory Communications under Iain Duncan Smith, may be appointed to Ken Clarke's campaign team. Mr Baverstock was a principal architect of IDS' 'fair deal for everyone' strategy and his one nation commitment to relink the basic state pension to earnings. 2001's Clarke campaign was notable for its lack of bold ideas. If Paul Baverstock joins the 2005 bid Mr Clarke may be suggesting that he's readier to advance a bolder leadership prospectus.

Also on the personnel front is news that David Willetts has strengthened his team. Atticus in yesterday's Sunday Times, reports that Penny Mordaunt, of Media Intelligence Partners and Tory candidate for Portsmouth North at the last election, is to be Chief of Staff to Mr Willetts' leadership bid.

Can any of the leadership candidates define Britishness?

Fraser Nelson, writing in this morning's The Business, invites the Conservative leadership candidates to reach for the "political gold" of defining Britishness. He notes that newpapers and politicians are falling over one another encouraging Muslims to embrace Britishness but without saying what it means.

He records the Tories who have tried in recent months to do so:

> David Davis talked of replacing multiculturalism with the "common values of nationhood" but, according to Mr Nelson, "he seems lost for an idea of what these values should be, other than nebulous ideas of tolerance and kindness".

> David Willetts is spotlighted for talk of "the monarchy, the armed forces and parliament" plus "an unusual degree of localism, villages and counties."

> Mr Nelson was more impressed with Dr Fox's attempt: "[Liam Fox] has been more specific, defining three pillars of Britishness: culture, history and institutions. He also risked naming Christianity as integral to Britain's DNA."

Fraser Nelson hopes that Conservatives can and must do better than this. He says that Conservatives must reach for the kind of 'morning in America' conservatism that Ronald Reagan set out. The Conservatives came closest, he thinks, with Michael Howard's February 2004 British Dream speech (written by Francis Maude). It was a hopeful and aspirational definition of Britain and Conservatism. It was probably the best but most neglected - of the seven phases of Michael Howard's own leadership.

***

conservativehome.com's own three level briefing on British identity can be accessed here.

David Lidington MP: The Case for David Willetts MP

This is the third in a continuing series of 'guest endorsements'. The next endorsement - of Liam Fox - will be written by Stephen O'Brien MP.

Our next Party leader needs three qualities above all: the intellect and imagination to understand the challenges facing Britain today; the experience and determination cope with the demands of being Party Leader, and the power to communicate both to longstanding supporters and to the wider electorate a distinctive vision for the future of our country. I believe that David Willetts has all three.

Few would challenge David’s intellectual credentials, certainly not Nigel Lawson or Margaret Thatcher, who head-hunted him to work for them during the 1980s. He always says that what first got him involved in politics was the rediscovery in the late-seventies and ‘eighties of free market economic ideas. What has marked David out from the intellectual crowd has been his work to reconcile free market ideas with the One Nation Conservative tradition.

In his pamphlet “Civic Conservatism” and more recently in his speech to the Social Market Foundation, Willetts has argued that most people in Britain have two central aspirations. They want freedom and opportunity: the power to make life better and more prosperous for themselves and their families. But they also want to feel that they have roots and identities: to live in a country in which there are strong social ties and common loyalties. Both are important and the lesson for the Conservative Party is that our language and policies should be both about individual freedom, private property and the market economy, and also about maintaining the institutions that hold our nation together.

David understands that it is the poor and vulnerable who suffer most from the unraveling of social cohesion. He supported Iain Duncan Smith’s emphasis on the Party reaching out to those in need, and on enhancing the role of the “little platoons” of the voluntary sector.

To be Leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister is to take on an all-consuming job. David Willetts knows the demands of politics at the top. He was Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, worked in the Number 10 Policy Unit, served as a Minister under John Major and for the last eight years on the Opposition front bench. He knows that the top jobs involve grind as much as glamour. He has the resilience to take knocks and return to the fray.

It’s reported that David Willetts is the Leader whom the Liberal Democrats most fear, and one can see why. Willetts has developed an effective, conversational style both at the Despatch Box and in the media. He deploys humour alongside intellect and self-evident reasonableness in debate makes his criticisms of the government more effective than strident condemnations. He has the brain, the style and the sense of purpose to persuade the average middle England voter that the Conservative Party is made up of normal human beings, that it will reform rather than dismantle the public services on which she and her family rely, and is genuine in its promises to serve the whole nation.

David Cameron calls for fixed-term parliaments and majority-elected Lords

In a speech to the Carlton Club later today Mr Cameron will discuss constitutional issues.

The Shadow Education Secretary will, according to Tania Branigan, “argue for bringing in fixed-term parliaments, more free votes for MPs, greater independence for parliamentary committees and a majority-elected Lords”.

Mr Cameron yesterday won some admiration from Chris Patten. The Chancellor of Oxford University told The Guardian:

"I wouldn't want to damage anybody's prospects by being too noisy a supporter but I think both David Willetts and David Cameron have the great advantage of being thoughtful and sensible. David Willetts makes comprehensible speeches about the sort of issues that politicians should worry about but can very seldom summon the political energy to get involved in, like the impact of demography on social policy. I suspect that David Cameron will be thought more charismatic as a potential leader, and it may be time to jump a generation and go for somebody much younger. He's an extremely decent, intelligent man, and he's got very good political judgment. It sounds rather a sanctimonious thing to say, but he's a good human being."

Lord Patten was much less sympathetic to David Davis:

"I don't really know him… The Conservative party keeps on electing leaders of the opposition, and it's about time we elected somebody who would be a prime minister. I don't think the Conservative party does itself any favours by talking to itself."

Is David Willetts the contest’s ‘middle man’?

That’s the question posed in this morning’s Telegraph. The newspaper asks if D Willetts might beat D Cameron and D Davis in the same way that John Major was the unexpected victor over the more established Michael Heseltine and Douglas Hurd?

Mr Willetts’ interview with The Telegraph has four main themes:

(1) OPTIMISM: "I'm an optimist. Britain isn't rotten, I want to be upbeat. Sometimes the Tory Party has painted the worst picture of what the country is like rather than painting a picture of how it could be better."

(2) TAX CUTS AREN’T A SILVER BULLET: "The burden of tax is rising - you see the effects of it on the family and business - but tax cuts are not the silver bullet that will of itself transform the party's electoral fortunes. Tax cuts aren't a winner when people don't believe they will happen."

(3) SOCIAL MOBILITY: "It's an absolute scandal that if you have a poor father you're more likely to have a low income yourself. I hope the Tory Party stands for not caring where you come from."

(4) IDEAS: "Ideas are the most important thing to me. If there were someone else who I thought was a better vehicle for my ideas I hope I would be big enough to fall in behind him or her. You shouldn't just be saying 'here I am, I can lead', it should be because you are speaking for ideas and truths that are bigger than any one individual."

Davis versus Cameron is a real choice says The Economist

This week’s Economist thinks that the Tory leadership race may be coming to life and that a clear choice may be emerging.

Its Bagehot column believes that “only the Davids – Davis, Willetts and Cameron – should be taken seriously” in the race to succeed Michael Howard. It dismisses Ken Clarke because of his “fanatical Europeanism, age and uncertain appetite for opposition”.

The Economist is encouraged by David Davis’ ’Mr Reform’ speech of Monday. Attributing Mr Davis’ ideas of public service choice and lower taxation to the “fiercely free-market think-tank” Reform, it writes:

”Mr Davis’s intention is plain. He is sounding a trumpet for politics as ideological combat. Tony Blair’s attempts at market-based reform of public services count for nothing. Practical difficulties are brushed aside. Mr Davis has a compass and it is pointing him out into clear blue water.”

In contrast David Cameron has said that it is “crazy” to exaggerate the differences between the Tories and Labour:

”Some Conservatives say that what we need is 'clear blue water' between ourselves and Labour. I think that's crazy. I came into politics to do the right thing and make a difference. I didn't come into politics to engage in some positioning exercise. Imagine if the doctrine of 'clear blue water' applied in the commercial world. You're a supermarket chain up against Tesco, who's offering 'good food at low prices.' I know: we'll offer 'bad food at high prices.' It's no different in politics.”

The Economist expresses interest in the commitments of the Davids Cameron and Willetts to address “family breakdown, rampant individualism [and] the cycle of deprivation that condemns many people to persistent poverty.”

It concludes - like The Sun and London Evening Standard - that the race is now between the “charming” and “colloquial” David Cameron and David Davis – “whose support is noisy but not yet deep”.