« Andrew Lilico: Things to believe and to disbelieve about climate change | Main | Louise Bagshawe: Save the Gordon! »



I've never been so in love.

Tony Makara

The thing that most impresses me about David Cameron is that he is a 'Thinking' politician. Have a look at David Cameron's speeches and you will see analysis followed by conclusion, then most importantly a solution. This approach to problem solving means that David Cameron is working within viable framework. The solutions he proposes are realistic and achievable. Where Gordon Brown would say "This will be done" and tries to fit policy around the desired aim, David Cameron by contrast says "This could be done" and only proposes what can realistically be achieved. This is a contrast from the big-fix approach of Labour which so often overshoots the mark.

Alan S

We must not forget how close the wonderful Mr Cameron came to killing off the Conservative Party. If Brown hadn't bottled an autumn election he would have crushed us. Cameron is more lucky than clever.

Oscar Miller

As someone who began to support the Conservative party because of David Cameron I was rather disconcerted through the summer reading the volume of comments slagging him off. After the magnificent conference and the bounce in the polls the comments began to get more appreciative. I hope this is genuine appreciation and not fair weatherism as Peter Franklin suspects. It can't be emphasised enough what an asset Cameron is. He is the outstanding politician of his generation with an unassailable and formidable range of skills. Intelligent and thoughtful - a man who thinks through policy with proper consultation but then commits without wavering. He's very astute at strategy and tactics. On top of that he's a brilliant communicater, able to speak to the point without guff and waffle getting to the heart of an issue in a simple direct manner. He's a leader who can rally and inspire the team. Plus he's a decent human being with a sense of humour who people like. This is a very rare combination of abilities and it never fails to amaze me that many party members don't seem able to give credit where it is due. Swallowing the all embracing negative spin coming from opposition parties is stupid at best and madness at worst. I've been convinced for awhile Cameron is going to be one of Britain's most distinguished PMs. But that won't happen by magic - the man needs loyalty and support.

Gordon's Missing Bottle

The Conservative party was never anywhere close to being 'killed off'. Worst case scenario: Brown called the election, Cameron launched his conference fightback but Labour was still returned with a majority and the Tory regeneration was put back 2 1/2 years. But many people reckoned that Brown would not call the election, and I'm sure that the reasoning that weighed in the minds of Guido Fawkes through Ken Clarke rang true in the minds of the Cameron camp. He took a calculated risk, showed a great deal of tenacity and pressure under fire, and won big. That's what marks out the very best politicians, the Blairs and Thatchers, from the Browns and Davises.


I do not think Cameron deserves much support other than perhaps in a faute de mieux way. If the Tory party and its leader cannot prosper after 10 years of the current bunch in power then the whole country would be doomed. I did read a speech of his once (a year or two before the last election) and it did very little for me. His subsequent rise (chocolate oranges et al) has done little to change my view.

Yet Another Anon

Thus for the first time in a long time, Conservatives can talk about family breakdown without sounding like a bunch of Pharisees
The Pharisees were legalistic, the ones that brough pressure for Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus weren't Pharisees though, they were Sadducee priests in the temple who differed on a number of points with the Pharisees.

The public like him and they respect him – a combination we’ve not had in a leader since Harold Macmillan.
What about Alec Douglas Home - he was seen as a bit remote, but likeable and was respected.

Moral minority

Cameron benefited from the Lib Dems's leadership crisis and Brown's bottling. He needs to maintain his current poll ratings following the election of Clegg as LD Leader. The best time to judge Dave's performance is next summer (if we have one).

Moral minority

Cameron benefited from the Lib Dems's leadership crisis and Brown's bottling. He needs to maintain his current poll ratings following the election of Clegg as LD Leader. The best time to judge Dave's performance is next summer (if we have one).

Michael Davidson

The reason why Cameron has been successful has been primarily down to the decline of Labour.

If Cameron was facing a more able PM than Gordon Brown, we wouldn't be anywhere near as high in the polls.

Oberon Houston

Its certainly been a rocky road, but looking back, I'm sure Cameron is all the stronger for it. I'm reading War & Peace at the moment (they were discussing how great it was on Today a couple of weeks ago, so I couldn't resist).

It is a good read, and the relevance to this thread is this: When Napoleon is invading Russia Tolstoy, in trying to get across the confusion and uncertainty that historians fail to appreciate when trying to understand the underlying reasons for the course of events, is discussing how such great events occur, and who is responsible. He agrees that strong characters and key players have their part to play, but he also says that they are only one part of the hand that shapes history, the other part - the major one - is the dozens, thousands, millions of interconnecting pieces that make up the future, or the past as we try to understand it. I remember that Portillo once said that the measure of Cameron's success would be how much blood he spilt on the carpet. In the event, events took over, and he never needed blood to become successful, so far, but it was an indirect route to where we are. The interesting thing will be what occurs going forward. We are doing well and prospects are good, we just need to hope things get even better. And that the hand of history sides with us.

Oscar Miller

If Cameron was facing a more able PM than Gordon Brown, we wouldn't be anywhere near as high in the polls.

I think precisely the opposite is true. If the Conservatives had had stronger leaders at the 2001 and 2005 elections they would have had every chance of winning. As it was Labour's pretty unimpressive performance was not contested by a strong opposition. Cameron's poll rise happened under Blair (and was dented temporarily by the Brown bounce). One of the reasons Brown looks so weak now is that he's up against a real opposition with a strong and convincing leader. A lesser leader would have been defeated by the summer/autumn events. Think back. Brown wanted an election not just to win but to destroy the Conservative party - to "seal the deal". That seemed a pretty realistic proposition last September. He bottled the election because Conservatives under Cameron had what it took to fight back. Brown bottled the election because the polls turned after the conference. That happened very largely because of the strength of Cameron's leadership. At one point the whole future of the party was billed by the media as depending on Cameron's conference speech. He came through with flying colours. Come on - credit where it is due!

The comments to this entry are closed.

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker