Bob Geldof boosts David Cameron's first 100 days campaign

When IDS became leader he warned that public perceptions of him would be difficult to reshape once the first few months had passed.  Writing for today's Guardian Jonathan Freedland acknowledges that this will also be true in shaping David Cameron's reputation and his early efforts are yielding positive results:

"I've noticed that friends usually bored by all matters Westminster want to talk about David Cameron; they want to know everything about him. Within the next few months the British public will reach a gut feeling about Cameron that, once in place, will be hard to shift. Will they regard him as a pretty-boy toff, too callow to be prime minister? Or will they buy the JFK hype and see him as a leader-in-waiting? The current mood suggests the latter - but it's not a done deal yet."

Today's news that Bob Geldof has joined David Cameron's globalisation and global poverty policy group is a key sign of the centrality of Mr Cameron's 'modern compassionate conservatism' in his first 100 days.  Economic competitiveness and security policy groups are being launched after those charged with social justice, the environment and now international development.

The G&GP policy group will examine:

• Aid including bilateral aid policies, microlending, disease prevention and disaster relief
• Global free trade (no specific mention of 'fair trade');
• The reform of the EU 's agricultural and aid policies;
• Civil society's role in development - plus human rights, property rights, governance and corporate responsibility;
• The role of NGOs in the World Bank, IMF and other multilateral bodies.

Peter Lilley MP will oversee the group's work.  A former Tory cabinet minister with responsibilities for trade and industry and then social security, Mr Lilley "devoted almost ten years to working on aid and development projects, mostly in Africa" before becoming an MP.  His online biography tells us little more about this 'devotion' but he was well ahead of his time in calling for a more compassionate Conservative Party.  As Deputy Tory Leader, in October 1997, Mr Lilley gave the First William Wilberforce Address to the Conservative Christian Fellowship.  He used his Address to argue for a Conservative Party that focused much more on the needs of poor Britons.  Although Mr Lilley has been a supporter of the decriminalisation of cannabis his emphasis on poverty has separated him from the narrow Soho style of modernisation championed at that time - and ever since - by the Portillistas.

The involvement of Bob Geldof, inspiration behind this year's Live8 event, is the one that has caught the attention, however, and led this morning's Radio 4 news bulletins.  It is not the first time that Mr Geldof has backed small 'c' conservative campaigns, however.  He has helped the Eurosceptic 'vote no' campaign and recently promoted traditionalist views on marriage.   Mr Lilley used an interview on this morning's Today programme to welcome Mr Geldof's involvement and he said that Mr Geldof would be helping put the group's membership together - which, he hinted, would include representatives from the developing world.   

But if Mr Geldof's early involvement is a publicity coup, The Daily Telegraph's leader writers are concerned that he might be unable to support the policy group if it recommends a truly right-of-centre anti-poverty agenda.  For The Telegraph that means "secure property rights, limited government, action against state monopolies and cronyism and, above all, independent mechanisms for judicial arbitration through which the citizen can realistically seek redress".  Alex Singleton of the Global Institute recently used this blog's Platform to argue for an intellectual revolution in international development.  He expressed concern that the Make Poverty History campaign - closely associated with Mr Geldof - was "wedded to outdated trade ideas about protecting infant industries and top-down approaches to aid". 

Mr Geldof may help to make Mr Cameron's first 100 days campaign to pass IDS' test but his maverick views may create tensions in coming months.  It will certainly fuel right-wing concerns that Mr Cameron's policy groups may include people with too divergent views.  That concern will only have been confirmed by a report in today's FT which notes Zac Goldsmith's views on big business and nuclear power.  Mr Goldsmith sits on the party's environment task force.

In addition, localists have already expressed concerns at centralising Ken Clarke's chairmanship of the Democracy Taskforce.  Most difficult is the environment policy group.  Its chairman John Gummer is a enthusiast for the Kyoto approach to climate change.  Mr Gummer's support for conventional multilateral endeavours has also manifested itself in his devout support of the euro and EU constitution.  He does not support the technologically-driven approach favoured by Australia and America (home to the world's two most successful conservative parties) even though a recent report showed that "ten of 15 European Union signatories will miss the targets without urgent action".  And the over-sold Kyoto Treaty wouldn't even make a difference to the real problem of global warming if it was implemented.  This from Michael Fumento on TownHall.com:

"Even supporters concede that if all countries complied the amount of warming prevented by 2100 would be at most 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, except that 0.2 degrees is unmeasurable. Certainly it won’t save a single polar bear."

The PR of Mr Cameron's policy groups is impeccable but all the hard policy choices lie ahead.

Comments

[Chris Palmer]

Bob Geldoff does seem to have some genuine concerns and good ideas on how to tackle poverty in Africa - unlike some of those people who jumped onto the LiveAid and BandAid wagons. This might give Cameron an air of credibility on the environment. However, I suggest he stears clear of Zac Goldsmith until the first 100 days are well and truely over!

[James Maskell]

Its all well and good that Geldof is getting involved as he has nothing to lose. If this policy group comes up with too radical ideas the traditionalists in the Party wont like it. If the ideas arent radical enough Geldof will speak out against the Tories dismissing them as not caring about the planet. Ive got the feeling that nothing really big is going to come from this policy group though.

[Selsdon Man]

Geldof attended a Conservative Future fundraiser at a Soho club over a year ago. His attendance generated a fair amount of press coverage. He was also a strong supporter of the No Euro and NO campaigns.

Our last two manifestos made a commitment to meet the UN target of development aid being 0.7% of GDP. I am more concerned about Greenpeace lovers Gummer and Goldsmith.

[Richard Allen]

Yet again this is deeply depressing. Sir Bob might be well meaning but he has never demonstrated a coherant intelectual approach to the problem. I seriously doubt that an idealist like him can support a truly conservative approach to this issue which must accept that there are limits to what we can do.

As James Maskall says it is okay for Sir Bob, he has nothing to lose but if he denounces our plans after we have given him a platform it would be very damaging for us.

Again it looks like Cameron is pandering to Liberal opinions rather than searching for conservative solutions to a problem.

[RobD]

Selsdon, although the last two manifestos made that commitment no one noticed and we were still seen as an uncaring party. Getting Geldof involved will be a masterstroke if he doesn't turn against us if the result isn't radical enough. Like electing Cameron there is a risk here, but one worth taking as the potential for positive publicity is huge.

[Ted]

Richard A - Bob Geldorf may not have a coherent intellectual approach but he is no idealist. "Give us your f****ng money" was the sensible message as people were starving and needed help at once but later he castigated bad government and the activities of African politicians in causing the problem.

He is a canny businessman, tough when he needs to be but with the compassion that exposure to the Irish missionary message builds into many brought up in the Irish republic. He will support a policy that looks at measures to provide immediate relief AND build foundations to reduce the need for Live 2026.

If we can craft a policy that builds on conservative principles of property rights, free trade, sensible investment but leavened with the compassion and charity needed to support the poor I think we will keep Geldorf inside the big tent and deliver a promise of real worth.

[Richard Allen]

Ted

I don't agree with you on this but if we do put forward sensible sloutions and if Geldof backs our plans I will happily admit that I was wrong.

[Biodun]

Richard Allen,

I agree with you completely. As an African, I can tell you that Geldof is a self-appointed saviour of the continent. Nobody there knows who he is, because the problems we are trying to fight, corruption, human rights violations, cronyism and tribalism are not the things that he is trying to address.

The problem is that so few people know what is going on in Africa, they are easily hoodwinked by self-serving charlatans like Geldof.

The Conservative Party should stay away from people like him.

[RodS]

Another day - another gimmick !

I cannot see Sir Bob sticking long with the only credible Tory policy on overseas aid i.e. 'It should always have strings attached'

World poverty (like climate change) is unavoidable whilst governments, including ours, wilfully encourage unsustainable population growth.

Twenty years on from the first Live Aid concerts - is Ethiopia any better off for all the billions of dollars in aid and loans. Its population has increased by 25 million in the last 20 years and the UN forecast is that another 25 million will be added in the next 10 years.

We are going backwards and 'compassion' is not the answer.

[Reasonable]

This is amazing.

It is a fantastic coup to have secured the involvement of a non-partisan figure who has done so much for Africa.

There is little reading between the lines here, which surprises me given the context. Haven't any of you considered that Mr. G may have understood - as all Tories should - that we can't make poverty history unless we make the CAP history?

Or that Tony Blair has recently, immorally, propped up rich French and Irish and other European farmers at the expense of poor African ones?

Or that he has pledged, unforced, to the rich nations of Europe a sum THREE TIMES greater than our entire aid budget to the third world?

Don't you people see what a prime concern of social justice and of a compassionate agenda this is? How can New Labour justify breaking the backs of the poverty-stricken farmers of Africa in order to shore up a system so corrupt that the accountants for the EU have refused to certify their accounts multiple years in a row?

These are part of the policy changes I expect Mr. Geldof to demand and we should accomodate him. I am, of course, all in favour of the EU, but it needs serious reform. Its protectionism is kicking the destitute in the teeth. Tony Blair refuses to help them; David Cameron should make it a priority. If he offers a modern, streamlined, efficient and just EU, then that will be something to celebrate. I believe Mr (Sir) Bob G saw the connection long ago, whatever his party politics.

Do you think the champion of the African poor is happy Blair saved the CAP?

[Wat Tyler]

Over the Xmas pud we wondered who DC would chose to be among the non-party policy thinkers he's promised.

St Bob was top of our list, and within 3 days here we are. Can St Jamie be far behind?

(Other popular choices were Bonio, JK Rowling, Swampy, Sir Elton, Lady McCartney, Bridget Jones, that woman who won the two Olympic golds, Sir Steve Redgrave, David Attenbrough, Lord IVF, the bloke in Coldplay who's married to thingie, Zoe Ball- or her Dad- Paddy Pantsdown, Sir Trevor, Sharon, Euan, Cilla, et seq).

[John Hustings]

We'll have ginger spice heading a health taskforce next.

[Adrian Owens]

Rod S says "World poverty (like climate change) is unavoidable whilst governments, including ours, wilfully encourage unsustainable population growth.

Twenty years on from the first Live Aid concerts - is Ethiopia any better off for all the billions of dollars in aid and loans. Its population has increased by 25 million in the last 20 years and the UN forecast is that another 25 million will be added in the next 10 years.

Rod,

Population growth does not cause poverty or famine. In fact, it can be a key engine of economic growth and provide the "critical mass" to make key transport infrastructure economically viable. New roads and airstrips in their turn help to mitigate the effects of poor harvests by making the distribution of releif supplies easier and quicker.

Ethiopia is still sparsely populated.

Rather, Ethiopia's problems relate to those endemic in Africa: poorly-developed civil society and war. To this, one could add its overdependence on coffee as an export crop, and the problems in that market caused by tariffs.

[Editor]

"Bonio" the dog buscuit might be useful, Wat, but Bono (Time's Man Of The Year) might be more useful!

[Richard Allen]

Actually I think that dog biscuits would be of more use to us than Mr Hewson would be.

[Biodun]

You took the words out of my mouth Adrian.
Africa is the second largest of all the continents, and yet its entire population (approx. 800 million) is less than that of India or China.

Their population growth is not what is unsustainable, their economic policies however are.

[Derek]

800 million is still a lot of people.
India and China are very over-populated in my opinion, in fact the world as a whole is, and this is the reason why the environment is under such pressure. It also is a reason for the flood of immigrants and asylum seekers to the UK.

Increasing population might seem to be a way of growing the economy here in the UK in the short term, but in the third world it is only likely to lead to even greater poverty.

[Kate Castle]

Excellent news for the party and I think those who suggest Geldof may turn against the party if they don't go far enough are wrong. As he has proven over the last twelve months he is a political realist, and also understands how to make people sit up and pay attention. The Cameron revolution gets better by the day.

[Biodun]

Derek,
800 million for one continent is not that much, considering its size.

Africa is not as populated as the US or even the UK per square kilometre!

You have to reason comparatively.

Continent wise, Africa is actually under-populated. The problem is the corrupt governments that don't care for the people, not the number of people there.

Believe it or not, even if there were fewer africans, their lives would not be any better. Per capita income would of course increase, but what difference does that make when a kleptocracy is looting everything?

Considering the damage that AIDS is wreaking, if anything in the next 20 or 30 years some countries will be begging for migrants.

@Kate Castle, Geldof a political realist? The man has accomplished NOTHING at all. Why does he keep getting kudos?

[Adrian Owens]

Derek,

Singapore - 5569 people per sq. km
Netherlands - 460 people per sq. km
Japan - 335 people per sq. km
UK - 244 people per sq. km

China - 132 people per sq.km
Ethiopia - 59 people per sq.km

Room for a few more in the developing world I'd say.

Source: 1997 World Population Sheet

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"The man has accomplished NOTHING at all. Why does he keep getting kudos?"

Apart from the invaluable work he's done raising awareness about issues such as global poverty and trade injustice you mean?

[Henry Cook]

Its good to have people with different viewpoints on these policy groups - there wouldn't be much point in having them if everyone agreed on the solutions. I suspect the end result of the group will get a 'good as far as it goes' response from Geldof.

Jamie Oliver for the 'quality of life' or 'public service reform' groups? That would indeed be a PR coup.

[James Hellyer]

Apart from the invaluable work he's done raising awareness about issues such as global poverty and trade injustice you mean?

He's raised awareness for short term fixes that actually fixed nothing (Live Aid didn't address Ethiopia's real problem - Mengistu Haile Mariam using famine as a political - but did feed his armies).

And trade injustice? That's just code for giving more power to nanny states to run protectionist policies. The problem, of course, being that African states are all too often kleptocracies run to protect their rulers. Giving their rulers more money and power can never be the answer.

I'm sure Geldof has good intentions, but then we all know they pave the road to hell.

[Frank Young]

"The man has accomplished NOTHING at all. Why does he keep getting kudos?"

Read the G2 section of the Guardian today.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Well James, if Geldof hadn't got involved, far fewer people would be aware of these issues. I agree that the solutions he espouses are far from perfect (even to somebody as quixotic as myself!) but raising awareness of these issues from the British public (and further afield as well), which has all too often shown itself to be indifferent and apathetic to such matters, is an achievement in itself.

[James Hellyer]

"Read the G2 section of the Guardian today."

No thank you. I'm not a socialist.

[James Hellyer]

"Well James, if Geldof hadn't got involved, far fewer people would be aware of these issues."

I'd argue that Michael Buerk had a far greater role in publicising the famine in Ethiopia!

And I maintian that the problem with the "publicity" offered by the likes of Geldof is that it's wedded to a particular set of solutions. They aren't just saying that something is a problem, they are telling people what the "solutions" are. And those "solutions" are profoundly unConservative.

I have to say, that while it nets some PR getting the likes of Geldof involved in the party, it also carries the risk that it will blow up in our faces if we don't toe their line. Unless, of course, the appointment itself signals the party's future direction, in which case there's even more cause for concern...

[Editor]

Are you trying to be funny, James?

Thanks Frank - it's an interesting piece.

Third party endorsements - like those of Geldof - are electoral gold.

Endorsements from people like Geldof matter in a world where politicians and the media aren't trusted/ respected.

Geldof is a loose cannon and Cameron is taking a big risk with him but I understand the gamble.

[James Hellyer]

"Are you trying to be funny, James?"

About The Guardian? Yes. And I'm not looking for a job in the public sector either.

About Geldof? No.

The concerns about him are twofold. Either he'll throw the toys out of his pram when the task force recommends something different to them, or the task force will support his suggestions, which will be a bad thing for the developing world.

The question is therefore whether Geldof is expected to come around to the Conservative way of thinking, or whether the party is likely to endorse a "trade justice" and debt cancellation agenda. The former seems unlikely given Geldof's previous comments, and the latter would be another tragic sell out.

[Ed R]

Best case scenario?

The committee comes up with good proposals, Geldof backs the party giving it huge credibility on this issue.

Worst case scenario?

Geldof throws his toys out of the pram and we get a few days discussing the Conservatives' views on global poverty.

When is the last time we had ANY serious news time focusing on Tory views on global poverty?

Great coup. The format of these panels is excellent -- a former political heavyweight with long experience teaming up with a high-profile spokesman on the issue but then a number of people who don't have high profiles but who will hopefully be able to bring the intellectual clout to the table. Sure, it could all go nowhere -- in which case we're back to where we started and we've lost nothing. But if it does go somewhere...

[James Hellyer]

If you think that's the worse case scenario then you're likely in for a shock. Given that this "endorsement" was couched by the BBC and ITN in terms of Geldof either "selling out" or "being used", I think a falling out would be used to comprehensively demolish the party's credibility on one of the issues Cameron's trying to claim.

[James Hellyer]

And then there's the possibility that the task force produces god awful proposals that Geldof backs, which leaves the horrifying prospect of Cameron adopting them...

[Jaz]

"And then there's the possibility that the task force produces god awful proposals that Geldof backs, which leaves the horrifying prospect of Cameron adopting them..."

I'm sure you will find a problem with Cameron's poverty policy anyhow lol..

Back to the point, a very tactically and carefully crafted media stuny by Cameron yet again. he got all the Tv news headlines and got into the papers. He didnt make any massive interviews or speaches proclaiming his new prize...No sign of arrogance of political opportunism.

I wonder what happened to Labours 100 day war...They must be cooking something up...or are they out of steam...?

[James Hellyer]

"I'm sure you will find a problem with Cameron's poverty policy anyhow lol..."

If it's a bad policy, yes. But then you seem to have a problem with people actually believing in things.

"Back to the point, a very tactically and carefully crafted media stuny by Cameron yet again. he got all the Tv news headlines and got into the papers."

And the tone on the BBC and ITN was overwhelmingly negative! It was all about how Geldof was being used (according to the reporters), was ready to rubbish us if he didn't like what we said (according to him), and was just a cynical positioning exercise (according to the editorials).

Yes, what a masterpiece of positive coverage!

[Ed R]

I'll take "Nasty Tories in Global Poverty row" over "Nasty Tories in Immigration/Europe row" any day of the week. A bit of controversy doesn't necessarily do the party any harm if it's discussing an issue the party isn't associated with in the first place.

[Editor]

James Hellyer: "And then there's the possibility that the task force produces god awful proposals that Geldof backs, which leaves the horrifying prospect of Cameron adopting them..."

Let's remember that Peter Lilley is in charge of the Policy Group. He has the abilities and credentials to produce excellent recommendations and will certainly object to "god awful proposals".

If we are to believe this morning's Times, Mr Geldof's involvement isn't going to be huge. This is what he txted the newspaper: "I will be an ad hoc, pro tem, unpaid consultant 4 about 3 hours next yr. Same as the govt, lib dems if they want it. Like we do 4 reps n dems in u.S. No diff, no big deal. I’m on hols. Go away. bg”

[Jack Stone]

I think the Bob Geldorf news should be welcomed. If you are going to have a serious policy review than you should listen to views from across the political divide and this is what David Cameron seems to be doing on this and other subjects.
Whatever you do in life there are risks and bringing people like Geldorf into the tent does pose a risk but unless your prepared to take risks in life you very rarely end up achieving anything.
Not surprised to see the same old names being there usual negative selves about this as they are about all things Cameron but as long as the party continues to get a positive response from the voters at large which it as got since Camerons election than I for one think there best ignored.

[Selsdon Man]

The key question is whether those who oppose our core values should have a role in developing policy.

Pro-market think tank and business leaders should have leading roles in these groups.

[James Hellyer]

He has the abilities and credentials to produce excellent recommendations and will certainly object to "god awful proposals".

Except it's Geldof whom Cameron said would be taking the party in the direction it wanted to go in. Geldof will offer a "trade justice", debt cancellation, and the need to give these countries more money - because these are the only solutions he ever offers. And the signal from Cameron is that's the direction we want.

And I don't think you can protest that Lilley's involvement will somehow guarantee good outcomes. I was hopeful because John Redwood is heading the economy task force, but the comments of Letwin et al have made it clear that no matter what he recommends tax cuts won't be on the agenda.

[Michael McGowan]

Hello, Jack, how's life back home in the Labour Party, these days? They are getting so far down the D List candidates for ministerial office that, who knows, you may find yourself getting a New Year summons from Tony.

[Deckchair of despair]

James H - philosophically I am in general agreement with you; but in this case I think you may be being a little too worried or negative. In his earlier "poverty figurehead" days, Bob G was indeed much too simplistic in his assessment of the problems and proposed solutions to African poverty; but in more recent times he has said things which indicate that he has come to realise (from practical experience on the ground, I think) that among the major problems standing in the way of increased prosperity for Africa are kleptocratic governments and, in some countries, the almost complete absence of property rights. That being so, I don't think he would recommend blindly shovelling loads of cash to African governments. I think his view now is quite a bit more sophisticated than is perhaps realised (and certainly more sophisticated than the stupid BBC). I hope I'm right.

[James Hellyer]

Geldof's comments in recent time would indicate his agenda is unchanged, and remains shackled to closely to the Make Poverty Permanent crowd.

[malcolm]

Aren't some of the more negative comments on this thread rather premature? Surely the time for comments such as these to appear will be after Peter Lilley reports with his ideas if they turn out to be poor.
Personally I think Cameron has pulled off quite a coup,it is risky and could all go wrong but it is time our party took some risks.
I also notice that many of the most negative posters never seem to offer alternative ideas themselves.If they think the work of Geldof and his colleagues is so bad what would they propose?