Stephan Shakespeare: Changing the leader would be madness for the party; but it is also madness not to change a flawed strategy

“No lurch to the right”, “stay the course”, “stick with the centre ground”, “no wobble” – when these familiar phrases appear in the press, we can sum up the situation with one word: “trouble”.

The next election is still winnable for David Cameron. But it will demand clear thinking. Above all, Tory strategists must understand that in the modern world – and after all, we strive to be ‘modern’ – there is no such thing as a ‘centre ground’. We live in a multi-dimensional world, we do not aggregate around some fixed mid-position on a line on a graph. Where would you place the Gordon Brown of taper relief, which he has pledged to continue even for private equity? On the left or right? It’s certainly not centrist.

So far, CCHQ has provided a one-dimensional strategy: changing the party brand from nasty to nice. No problem with that, DC has done really well on that account. Whether or not the Conservatives were ever truly seen in those terms, there is no doubt that the image of knee-jerk cutters of public services was a real problem.

But on the authoritarian-libertarian axis, perhaps he’s got it wrong. The British voter wants to see hoodies incarcerated, drugs discouraged, and terrorist suspects held in custody for as long as it pleases the police. They don’t want casinos or late-night drinking, and their only objection to identity cards is the potential cost. The public wants a strong man to deal with the chaos, not a decent chap with a liberal disposition.

I think there’s a third axis, and this one is harder to define. It’s about inclusiveness, and DC has got it half right. The British people are tolerant of differences between people, and the new Conservative tone generally harmonises with that. But there is a problem on immigration: tracking by various pollsters clearly shows that immigration is a huge issue – some even show it as the number one issue. There is a genuinely non-racist concern about what is perceived as too many people freely entering the country. The Conservatives have vowed not to exploit this theme. I’m genuinely unsure about whether that’s the right thing to do or not: suddenly making immigration a big topic is probably too much of a shift, and would be derided as the dreaded ‘lurch’. But I wonder if Gordon Brown will hold back?

Undoubtedly, DC needs to find a way to be more in tune with ordinary people, more determined to deliver them genuine improvements, less focused on the concerns of a special world of privilege. The Notting Hill strategy was always going to rebound on him, because it fundamentally misunderstood the electorate. In business, when we get something wrong, we try to change it. If a company’s performance is dragging, the admired CEO would never stand before investors and say: “I refuse to adapt the strategy”. That would not make him seem a strong and decisive leader, it would actually make him look weak, as if his personal vanity mattered more to him than his shareholders’ money, and he’d soon be sacked by the board.

Changing the leader would be madness for the party. David Cameron has had a lot of success, and he needs to carry it forward. But it is also madness not to change a flawed strategy. To his ‘nice man’ image, David Cameron needs to add the tough pragmatist, willing to do whatever it is that real-world analysis shows is in the best interests of the nation, instead of what the pollsters tell him about his 'brand'. He should be less interested in his own image, and more interested in what would make life better for ordinary ‘strugglers’. Politics should be about the people, not about the politicians.

Comments

[dafberad]

'Changing the leader would be madness for the party. David Cameron has had a lot of success, and he needs to carry it forward. But it is also madness not to change a flawed strategy.'

But what If he wont change his flawed strategy? Should he be removed then?

[Matt Davis]

I am truly impressed. That is the best analysis of our current situation, and the choice that now confronts Cameron, that I have yet seen. Couldn't agree more with absolutely all of it, no wonder Stephan Shakespeare is a man of genuine influence and richer than me.

[jorgen]

Good analysis if one as a party member has to show solidarity with the leader. However, if one were not bound by such strings:

David Cameron has had a lot of success, and he needs to carry it forward.

Absolutely, but his strategy is to lure gullible lefties to the "David Cameron's Conservatives" hopig not too many real Conservatives don't mind and he has apparently long ago reached the limit for what was possible. The net intake of lefties has stopped and old Conservative voters are leaving in disgust. How many members does the Party have today? I'll bet it has not been this low in decades.

Now Blair has gone and the polls have been regulated back to a solid Labour lead. There is no way the Conservative Party can win any election while Cameron is running the show. If Cameron had been a CEO, he would have been fired more than a year ago.

A good general knows when to retreat to avoid being wiped out. Cameron would have to do a 180 degrees turn to get the old members back, including dropping his environmentalist ideas. This is of course not going to happen.

So, don't worry about the next election as Labour will win it hands-down. Start instead aiming at the next again: revert to real Conservative policies to regain peoples trust and learn to sell them properly for once. The key to this is in the largest group of voters in the next election: the people not voting: the solid ones will be real Conservatives. Read the comments in Telegraph!

[John Marsh]

I totally agree. Cameron is ignoring the issues like immigration and crime that people are most concerned about. There is too much focus on PR not enough on policy. Rebranding was OK as an initial strategy but we now need substance urgently. Keeping on heading for the centre ground is oblivion. We are being outflanked from the right by Brown.

[TomTom]

I am tired of Cameron...is there anyone else in his Shadow Cabinet with any responsibilities ? It does seem a bit amateurish and sporadic....but maybe they simply aren't interested.....

[Tapestry]

What does Stephan think of the ICM Poll on politicalbetting yesterday which shows Cameron gaining voters from Labour and Lib Dem at double the rate he is losing Conservatives? And Labour losing voters at double the rate they are gaining them? The poll was only on those who voted in the GE 2005. If true, maybe Cameron's strategy has been working better than we thought.

[HF]

There are 2 reasons why a strategy fails.

1. It was the wrong strategy.
2. The implementation of the strategy was flawed.

We know that the consultation and announcement of strategy has been badly handled (grammar schools, Polly, hoodies etc).

We also know that too many shadow ministers are failing to occupy the media and hold the Govt to account.

First fix the organisational problems and lame shadow ministers. One example is Ainsworth who finally wakes up and talks to the Telegraph 9 days after the floods.

Thinking up wonderful strategy is a pointless exercise if we do not have a political machine that can communicate it.

[HF]

There are 2 reasons why a strategy fails.

1. It was the wrong strategy.
2. The implementation of the strategy was flawed.

We know that the consultation and announcement of strategy has been badly handled (grammar schools, Polly, hoodies etc).

We also know that too many shadow ministers are failing to occupy the media and hold the Govt to account.

First fix the organisational problems and lame shadow ministers. One example is Ainsworth who finally wakes up and talks to the Telegraph 9 days after the floods.

Thinking up wonderful strategy is a pointless exercise if we do not have a political machine that can communicate it.

[HF]

There are 2 reasons why a strategy fails.

1. It was the wrong strategy.
2. The implementation of the strategy was flawed.

We know that the consultation and announcement of strategy has been badly handled (grammar schools, Polly, hoodies etc).

We also know that too many shadow ministers are failing to occupy the media and hold the Govt to account.

First fix the organisational problems and lame shadow ministers. One example is Ainsworth who finally wakes up and talks to the Telegraph 9 days after the floods.

Thinking up wonderful strategy is a pointless exercise if we do not have a political machine that can communicate it.

[Tony Makara]

By the centre ground I believe David Cameron means non-ideological territory. That doesn't mean that David wants to go into the election and government without policy. Rather it means that David Cameron won't allow himself to be boxed in by ideological dogma. Most voters are in the non-ideological centre ground. That is where the next election will be won. The eclectic nature of the modern voter means that the old style ideological block thinking is dead. Voters today want a pragmatic non-ideological politics. David Cameron has recognized this, sadly though a number of Conservative MPs are still not able to grasp the concept.

[Og]

Excellent piece. Reliable, those Shakespeares.

Half of Labour shout and scream "lurch to the right!" whenever Cameron & Co say something sensible (which is rarely). The other half keep telling us that under the second-hand liberal clothes, Cameron is an unreconstructed right-wing Thatcherite. (I wish).

The branding phase is over, and Hilton should not have his contract renewed. It is now about policy, and they had better look like Conservative policies, because if they don't, the electorate have no logical reason to buy them.

Cameron is getting IDS-sized support at the moment; were this to continue in the autumn after the policy announcements and conference season, he has no choice but to adapt the strategy.

And for all you Cameroons out there, who can't accept any criticism of him, and blame the current situation - bizarrely - at the right wing of the party:

He's not the Messiah. He's a very haughty boy.

[dafberad]

'By the centre ground I believe David Cameron means non-ideological territory. That doesn't mean that David wants to go into the election and government without policy. Rather it means that David Cameron won't allow himself to be boxed in by ideological dogma. Most voters are in the non-ideological centre ground. That is where the next election will be won. The eclectic nature of the modern voter means that the old style ideological block thinking is dead. Voters today want a pragmatic non-ideological politics. David Cameron has recognized this, sadly though a number of Conservative MPs are still not able to grasp the concept.'

I have never heard such utter BS in all of my life.

People want their politicians to be oportunistic without any conviction? Is that why Alex Salmond is first minister of scotland? and why Ian Paisley is first minister of northern ireland with martin mcguiness as his deputy? Sarkozy in france? Rudy guiliani and hillary clinton? Do you really think that these are un-radical 'pragmatic' non-ideological politicians. Just because David Cameron says that elections are won on the centre ground and uses tony blairs victories as 'proof' doesn't make it so, and you saying that voters don't want leaders with strong beleifs doesn't make it so either.

I think we should look at the opinion polls once again, It is Daves rating that has plumbeted and not the conservative party's. The conservative party as a whole are now more popular than cameron.

[Yogi]

Cllr Tony Sharpe's blog on Friday disected the problems facing Cameron in a lucid manner. People are knocking on our doors - but find the party has gone awol. It is not a lurch to the right if we talk about immigration, law and order, or high taxation.
Unfortunately the front bench is too preoccupied by their obsession with the Islington Liberals and are oblivious to the concerns of C1s and C2s who voted for us in droves in the eighties. The sooner cameron and Gideon recognise this and spell out clear policies the better and all talks of crisis will stop. If they bury their heads in teh sand, we'll continue to be in the fringes.

[Edward]

"So far, CCHQ has provided a one-dimensional strategy: changing the party brand from nasty to nice. No problem with that, DC has done really well on that account. Whether or not the Conservatives were ever truly seen in those terms, there is no doubt that the image of knee-jerk cutters of public services was a real problem."

Great article but it effectively *does* amount to urging the party to go backwards. This paragraph only seems to suggest that despite what you say you've never been on board with what Cameron's done in moving the party forward and are trying to dress up what used to be known as a "core vote strategy" in new clothes and trendy language.

I just don't think that will cut it, as it's sure to be characterised as a lurch to the right.

What we need is to keep going as we are and to pull in behind the leader but at the same time to use Cameron's language and presentation to justify specific practical and pragmatic policies which will make things better.

[Tony Makara]

dafberad, Your mode of thinking is outdated. Statesmanship requires a hand-on flexible and pragmatic approach. You may mock the idea of eclectic politics but in the 21st century that is what people want. A leader can have pasion, core beliefs, and not be tied to them. Those that see a given ideology as sacrosanct become prisoners of their own particular brand of politics. Imagine a scenario where a prime minister has to cope with a given political crisis, who would cope with the problem better, an ideological leader who sticks with his world-view come what may? Or a pragmatic leader who acts in the national interest irrespective of his personal views? Pragmatism is the only way to govern.

[dafberad]

'What we need is to keep going as we are and to pull in behind the leader but at the same time to use Cameron's language and presentation to justify specific practical and pragmatic policies which will make things better.'

What policies?

[Simon Newman]

Tough but incisive analysis, I have to agree.

[dafberad]

dafberad, Your mode of thinking is outdated. Statesmanship requires a hand-on flexible and pragmatic approach. You may mock the idea of eclectic politics but in the 21st century that is what people want. A leader can have pasion, core beliefs, and not be tied to them. Those that see a given ideology as sacrosanct become prisoners of their own particular brand of politics. 'Imagine a scenario where a prime minister has to cope with a given political crisis, who would cope with the problem better, an ideological leader who sticks with his world-view come what may? Or a pragmatic leader who acts in the national interest irrespective of his personal views? Pragmatism is the only way to govern.'
Can you name a pragmatic non idealogical leader? I have named several that aren't, I can continue if you want me to, John Howard Helen Clarke, stephen harper, george bush fidel castro, hugo chavez, ken livingstone, Ieuan Wyn Jones, jose barroso, romano prodi, vladamir putin are many in addition to the ones that I have already mentioned (Alex Salmond, Ian Paisley, martin mcguiness, rudolph guliani, hillary clinton, nikolas sarkozy) all of these are either are or are about to be elected.

Name ONE succesful non-idealogical pragmatic centrist leader?

[dafberad]

'dafberad, Your mode of thinking is outdated. Statesmanship requires a hand-on flexible and pragmatic approach. You may mock the idea of eclectic politics but in the 21st century that is what people want. A leader can have pasion, core beliefs, and not be tied to them. Those that see a given ideology as sacrosanct become prisoners of their own particular brand of politics. 'Imagine a scenario where a prime minister has to cope with a given political crisis, who would cope with the problem better, an ideological leader who sticks with his world-view come what may? Or a pragmatic leader who acts in the national interest irrespective of his personal views? Pragmatism is the only way to govern.'

Can you name a pragmatic non idealogical leader? I have named several that aren't, I can continue if you want me to, John Howard Helen Clarke, stephen harper, george bush fidel castro, hugo chavez, ken livingstone, Ieuan Wyn Jones, jose barroso, romano prodi, vladamir putin are many in addition to the ones that I have already mentioned (Alex Salmond, Ian Paisley, martin mcguiness, rudolph guliani, hillary clinton, nikolas sarkozy) all of these are either are or are about to be elected.

Name ONE succesful non-idealogical pragmatic centrist leader?

[Simon Newman]

Tony Makara:
"By the centre ground I believe David Cameron means non-ideological territory"

I still don't know what centre ground means. It clearly doesn't mean what the average Brit in the street thinks, as Makara implies - as Shakespeare points out, most people are far more authoritarian than any of the three main parties; favouring capital punishment, a near complete end to immigration, identity cards (if they'll help vs terrorism) etc. They won't necessarily vote for a party that promises what they want though, partly because the BBC has persuaded them that their views are vaguely immoral.

[Tony Makara]

dafberad, How would you define successful? By being in power? Pragmatism is the politics of the 21st century. I would hardly call Castro and Livingstone great role-models, these men may be successful at grabbing power but I want a leader that works in the best interest of our people. The era of ideology is dying. Dogma has only ever brought the world misery.

[Edward]

Being on the centre ground means appearing to be in the mainstream and at the heart of the key debates about our future rather than being perceived as pandering to specific fringe elements of society.

[Tony Makara]

Simon, For the record I would love to see a referendum on the restoration of capital punishment. However I'm quite prepared to accept that the general consensus in political circles is against such a move. The fact is we all think we are 100% right on every issue. Nontheless we have to be realistic and accept that we can only go with what the majority consensus wants because that is democracy.

[dafberad]

I am still waiting for you to name ONE sucessful non ideological leader?

I would define being succesful as being elected and runing your country well(in your view and your electorates view) fidel castro is seen as a god in cuba and livingstone has been re-elected twice so I think that makes him pretty succesfull, even If I disagree with his policies.

[Kevin Davis]

Good piece.

Re: Immigration

This is a tricky balancing act because on the on hand there is real concern amongst people about the numbers they perceive coming into the country. But on the other, the British tolerance you speak about seems to indicate that many people do not want a policy of "send them back" or "keep them out".

As yet, I am not sure we have found the correct message around this and for that reason maybe it is as well to keep off the subject until we have something useful to contribute.