Hague is back as Shadow Foreign Secretary...
Osborne stays Shadow Chancellor...
Maude stays Chairman...
Davis stays Shadow Home...
The Davis appointment will be a bitter pill for Liam Fox who has been given defence.
For more see BBCi here.
« Cameron sets up six policy groups - and IDS returns | Main | Rifkind returns to backbenches »
The comments to this entry are closed.
It shouldn't be bitter for Fox.
The point is to work together and win the next general election.
Undoubtedly, Fox will then get a major job. We'll see how long Davis sticks around for.
Posted by: Goldie | December 07, 2005 at 17:36
Disappointing for Fox. The biggest problem here has been Osbourne, who should have been moved to Education, so Fox could go to one of the big 3 jobs.
Posted by: Welshtory | December 07, 2005 at 17:38
Can't believe they have pushed Fox aside to Defence, though some say its an important brief, its a waste of one of our best talents, if I was Liam Fox right now I wouldn't be at all pleased. Cameron's first big mistake in my books.
Posted by: Rob | December 07, 2005 at 17:38
Perhaps the Fox will go to ground. Maybe he will decide to attack now he is cornered. But if those chickens are coming home to roost then watch out because that Fox is about.
Posted by: Clare Lewis | December 07, 2005 at 17:39
You must consider the alternative narrative. 'Sacking' Davis would have been big news, and the press could have used it for a negative story line.
DC is clearly trying to ensure absence of civil war in the party.
In the post 9/11 world, Defence is a pretty big job. Fox will have his day. Sometimes you take one for the team. There should be no grumbling.
Posted by: Goldie | December 07, 2005 at 17:41
Clare writes: "Perhaps the Fox will go to ground. Maybe he will decide to attack now he is cornered. But if those chickens are coming home to roost then watch out because that Fox is about."
God, how childish.
Posted by: Goldie | December 07, 2005 at 17:42
I wonder if Fox might enjoy the defence brief, one in which we can put genuine clear blue water between ourselves and Labour.
I don't think you can call it a demotion, the last Howard shadow cabinet was clearly an interim administration.
Great to see William Hague back.
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | December 07, 2005 at 17:42
Shut up Goldie - lighten up! I think someone should tell DC that Fox hunting is now banned. Maybe he is flaunting the rules, or perhaps he is drag hunting.
Posted by: Clare Lewis | December 07, 2005 at 17:48
It may be good to see Hague back but I hope that Fox is given the deputy leadership, for all that talk by Gove et al about Fox and Cameron being closer together, and the rumours at the weekend about Fox going to shadow home, Fox must be spitting feathers right now.
Posted by: Rob | December 07, 2005 at 17:49
I suspect that Fox probably knew better than to read the gossip in the Sunday newspapers...
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | December 07, 2005 at 17:50
Fox for Deputy Leader.
Posted by: cameron fan | December 07, 2005 at 17:53
Do you know Dr. Fox Iain, is he as decent as he appears?
Posted by: Clare Lewis | December 07, 2005 at 17:54
There are simply not enough 'traditional top jobs' for the number of quality candidates. There are lots of jobs that we need our best people in and Defence is one of them. In any case, I hope Liam Fox will be thinking that being Defence Secretary is a lot better than being shadow any-job. Davis did well enough to stay as Home Secretary. Hauge back is excellent news. If I was picking Osbourne wouldn't have been my first choice for Chancellor, but having a very close Leader and Chancellor will stand out as starkly different to the Labour benches.
Posted by: Kate Castle | December 07, 2005 at 17:54
Am I missing something?
Could someone remind me on what issue(s if any Liam Fox has scored notable victories against his opposite number(s) and/or with the voting public?
Is he really "one of our best talents"?
Posted by: Chris | December 07, 2005 at 17:55
Defence is an important area, but how can DC justify wasting the obvious talents of LF in an area that can easily be performed by anyone else on the front bench. If there was no room for Fox in the top 3 then he could have had something like Shadow W&P surely. When do you ever see the Shadow Defence Secretary on the news?
Posted by: Welshtory | December 07, 2005 at 17:56
There go those "obvious talents" again...can someone remind me what they are (concrete examples welcome).
Agree that W&P absolutely critical appointment.
Again we can offer a genuine team (Osborne + hopefully someone good maybe Willetts?) versus Brown + Johnson (is it?)
Posted by: Chris | December 07, 2005 at 18:01
Barbara Villiers said she would reveal her true identity at the end of the leadership contest. Another female non-Cameronite has since emerged on this blog. Could Clare Lewis be Barbara Villiers?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | December 07, 2005 at 18:03
no
Posted by: Clare Lewis | December 07, 2005 at 18:03
BBC are just reporting that Riftkin has refused any job bar Shadow Foreign Sec and has returned to the back bench. Its a pity to loose talent like that but holding out for one job is a little precious
Posted by: RobertDonnell | December 07, 2005 at 18:06
"A little precious"?
Not a team player = no loss.
Why are we so tolerant of the egos of these people - egos for the most part way (and I mean way) out of proportion to their abilities.
Posted by: Chris | December 07, 2005 at 18:07
Ken Clarke has accepted the Constitutional Affairs brief - I think. BBC are obfuscating.
Posted by: Clare Lewis | December 07, 2005 at 18:08
Rifkind was booted out by the voters of Scotland, from which he hails, in 1997 and failed to win back his seat in 2001. He has since desperately tried to get back in the Commons and had to stoop to Kensington & Chelsea, the safest Conservative seat in the country, to get back.....All of this effort to run for Leader without any indication of any support whatsoever and then arrogantly turn down a job in the Shadow Cabinet?
If so, he really ought to consider giving up his seat. We need fresh talents in the front lines. If this pro-European, anti-American Major stalwart isn't willing to work, let him go.
Posted by: Goldie | December 07, 2005 at 18:14
W&P is expected to go to Willetts. Not only a senior appointment to a Davis-ite (and therefore good for party unity), but he is undoubtedly the party's specialist on social security.
Posted by: Goldie | December 07, 2005 at 18:15
Is it correct that Willets is to go to W&P, Caroline Spelman to Education, Therese May to Health? Can anybody confirm? No top job for Alan Duncan then?
Posted by: Goldie | December 07, 2005 at 18:17
Totally agree with you Goldie, I was amazed when he got selected for K&C, I dont think he deserves to be in the Commons, we could have had a young and talented politician in his place. If he does just go to the backbenches and sulk then he deserves to be deselected.
Posted by: Rob | December 07, 2005 at 18:17
I rather liked Malcolm Rifkind and I felt he contributed to the debate over the summer. His decision is very disappointing, but frankly is unlikely to effect our electability, there are good people knocking on the Shadow Cabinet door and this will be a chance for someone else.
Posted by: Kate Castle | December 07, 2005 at 18:20
Rifkind is no loss to the front bench: he'll just allow another new person to get some experience. Fox sidelined is a bit of a shame, but I don't think it will do him any harm to keep his powder dry for now. I assume he's now most likely to get the deputy leadership...
Posted by: Ed R | December 07, 2005 at 18:22
I have to say I'm really disappointed with Sir Malcolm, although his decision is kind of understandable. Perhaps he'll be asked to head one of the policy groups - global poverty or security would suit?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | December 07, 2005 at 18:29
Sir M as a leader of the security group may lead to conflicts between the shadow ministers and the policy heads. IDS is different as he is a former leader. Perhaps deputy leader would have been a good job for Sir M - 'everyone needs a Malcie'but not now
Posted by: RobertDonnell | December 07, 2005 at 18:38
Look on the bright side. At least the mess in our defence procurement will at least be properly opposed. Where Fox grazes, the grass won't grow.
Cameron knows that he might be unfavourably compared to Fox and so needs to keep Fox's career in check - he also knows the pro-EU media are terrified of Fox and that they would attack him publicly - so for Cameron keen to get good media and win an election, it is good politics to be seen to be snubbing Fox.
He also knows that Fox won't be disloyal.
He knows the real potential enemies within are the Europhiles Maude and Clarke, and that they have massibve potential media support which needs neuralising.
and he knows that Davis is the perfect potential enemy to keep close.
But putting Clarke in charge of a review of the workings of government might be a masterstroke too far - putting the europhile 'fox' in charge of the Westminster chickens - pardon the inappropriate metaphor - might end up with the UK served up on a platter for the EU to devour.
All in all this is a different kind of chess game to any previous. Putting IDS in charge of the review body shows that Cameron is one Conservative who has realised how extraordinarily popular IDS is.
Posted by: R UK, MEP | December 07, 2005 at 19:47
Maude stays as Chairman. Not happy. I guess it villifies his attempt to strip the Party of the vote....
Posted by: James Maskell | December 07, 2005 at 20:31
It bloody annoys me that Defence is considered a non job. It is not and I am pleased to see Liam (my old boss) accept it regardless of how he may or may not be feeling. Yes it is not one of the biggies, but Liam is shrewd and plays a cunning game. Liam knows that having Hague back is worth the pain and he gets to play very closely with Hague which he will enjoy enormously.
He also knows where the real pressure has been placed - firmly with DD. DD is now in check mate. With his reputation now highly publicised during the campaign, he simply must perform loyally or he can be disposed of without any damage to the Party. Liam will then wrap up the right and step in.
It is to our undying shame that we allowed the abominable Geoff Who(n) to survive the War. With ever increasing pressure on Iraq withdrawal, the mindless regionalisation of our regiments and political correctness costing lives, Liam will most certainly have a stage and with good advice could uncover all sorts of crap that this govt forces our troops to endure.
They are a naturally conservative audience and long for someone to offer them the chance to vent their spleen over their treatment over the years. (I was one of them in Kosovo in 1999 - a complete sham of an expedition and a gratuitous grandstanding exercise by Mr Bliar. Don't get me started!).
Woo the generals and the troops Liam and you will have fun. Then you will return stronger than ever.
All the best, RB. (Anyone would think I was after a job!!)
Posted by: Richard Bailey | December 07, 2005 at 20:44
It bloody annoys me that Defence is considered a non job. It is not and I am pleased to see Liam (my old boss) accept it regardless of how he may or may not be feeling. Yes it is not one of the biggies, but Liam is shrewd and plays a cunning game. Liam knows that having Hague back is worth the pain and he gets to play very closely with Hague which he will enjoy enormously.
He also knows where the real pressure has been placed - firmly with DD. DD is now in check mate. With his reputation now highly publicised during the campaign, he simply must perform loyally or he can be disposed of without any damage to the Party. Liam will then wrap up the right and step in.
It is to our undying shame that we allowed the abominable Geoff Who(n) to survive the War. With ever increasing pressure on Iraq withdrawal, the mindless regionalisation of our regiments and political correctness costing lives, Liam will most certainly have a stage and with good advice could uncover all sorts of crap that this govt forces our troops to endure.
They are a naturally conservative audience and long for someone to offer them the chance to vent their spleen over their treatment over the years. (I was one of them in Kosovo in 1999 - a complete sham of an expedition and a gratuitous grandstanding exercise by Mr Bliar. Don't get me started!).
Woo the generals and the troops Liam and you will have fun. Then you will return stronger than ever.
All the best, RB. (Anyone would think I was after a job!!)
Posted by: Richard Bailey | December 07, 2005 at 20:45
Sorry didn't mean to post that twice. Gremlins!!
Posted by: Richard Bailey | December 07, 2005 at 20:45
Very not happy over Maude's re-appointment. That is DC's first mistake. Maude is thoroughly un-intelligent and unappealing. He is sycophantic, slimy, smarmy and an opportunist.
Portillo, to his credit, eventually had the good grace to concede that he could never be the acceptable face of compassionate conservatism. Maude should do the same.
Posted by: Richard Bailey | December 07, 2005 at 20:51
Very not happy over Maude's re-appointment. That is DC's first mistake. Maude is thoroughly un-intelligent and unappealing. He is sycophantic, slimy, smarmy and an opportunist.
Portillo, to his credit, eventually had the good grace to concede that he could never be the acceptable face of compassionate conservatism. Maude should do the same.
Posted by: Richard Bailey | December 07, 2005 at 20:52
I give up!!!
Posted by: Richard Bailey | December 07, 2005 at 20:53
Obviously I am glad that DD retained his job but Maude staying as Chairman is a catastrophe and to be frank Liam Fox got shafted.
Posted by: Richard Allen | December 07, 2005 at 21:15
Very not happy over Maude's re-appointment. That is DC's first mistake. Maude is thoroughly un-intelligent and unappealing. He is sycophantic, slimy, smarmy and an opportunist.
Although I very much agree with the general point - I'm no happier over this re-appointment than Richard is - I want to dispute one point.
From what I have seen, Maude's not actually un-intelligent - more's the pity! He's quite lazy, and willing to sit back and let others make the running, but ultimately he's actually quite sharp.
And the problem is, he fully appreciates - as not every party chairman has done - the value of using his position totally cynically for factional, modernising purposes.
In other words, if you're unlucky enough to be male, or not 'ethnic' enough, or 'old' (e.g. over 35), or someone who's worked hard for the party for years, or someone who actually believes in conservative sort of things, I don't much fancy your chances of getting a seat any time soon.
Apropos of nothing, has our old pal Mark MacGregor been given a role within CCO yet? Like those old people who used to read The Times hoping to hear about the first vernal swallow, I am looking forward to that first sighting ....
Posted by: Michael Smith | December 07, 2005 at 21:19
Sorry that the html encoding didn't work on that last post. The first paragraph, which was a quotation from Richard's post above, was meant to be italicised.
Incidentally, I note that Lady Thatcher has been admitted to hospital tonight, feeling faint. I hope all Conservatives and other well-disposed types will join me in wishing her a swift and thorough recovery.
Posted by: Michael Smith | December 07, 2005 at 21:37
I am surprised at the speed of all these appointments. DC is a man in a hurry. It certainly portrays his leadership as decisive. I think he has made some very good decisions, particularly to keep DD as Home Sec. I was sorry to lose Rifkind as he is a very able man, but no one is bigger than the team, and he must be prepared to serve in more than one capacity. I hope John Redwood is able to play an important role. He has shown himself to be a true team player and is well suited to cutting red tape.
Posted by: Derek | December 07, 2005 at 21:43
"I hope John Redwood is able to play an important role. He has shown himself to be a true team player and is well suited to cutting red tape."
Excellent point - I agree absolutely. He has also been completely loyal, both during IDS's time and also Michael Howard's, and would add rigour, intelligence and maturity (in the best possible sense) to any Shadow Cabinet.
Posted by: Michael Smith | December 07, 2005 at 21:49
Redwood tops my list of people who should never again appear under a Tory banner or caption. Those starring eyes and wierd look.....nooooo!!
It is my greatest hope that a number of our old fashioned brethren will call it a day ahead of the next election. Its unfair to pick on anyone in particular but the Wintertons spring to mind.
Now then, I am only hitting the POST button once!
Posted by: Richard Bailey | December 07, 2005 at 22:03
"Those starring eyes and wierd look"
Yes, looking 'wierd' (or weird, even, as many of us spell it) really ought to stop you from having any serious position within the present-day Tory Party. (Are the PC police taking note? Francis! There's someone being 'lookist' here ... what shall I do?)
At least Redwood can read and write literate English. That might be a help.
Posted by: Michael Smith | December 07, 2005 at 22:11
I think we should all pray for Baroness Thatcher. Wishing her a speedy recovery.
Posted by: Clare Lewis | December 07, 2005 at 22:41
I think we should all pray for Baroness Thatcher. Wishing her a speedy recovery.
Posted by: Clare Lewis | December 07, 2005 at 22:44
What are your political qualifications or achievements that qualify you to make such statements about John Redwood, Richard Bailey? You seem an egotistical nonentity to me!
Posted by: Selsdon Man | December 07, 2005 at 22:44
Shame he couldn't speak Welsh though.
Posted by: Welshtory | December 07, 2005 at 22:45
"From what I have seen, Maude's not actually un-intelligent - more's the pity! He's quite lazy"
Yep. This is the problem in a nutshell. There are modernisers and traditionalists who think this is a big mistake.
Posted by: tory_worker | December 07, 2005 at 22:48
Redwood won his seat quite comfortably against Lib Dem decapitation threat. He was really very bright with his strategy.
Realising that Lib Dem voters ahve no idea what Lib Dem policies actually are, he ran a very effective campaign of publicising Lib Dem policies to Lib Dem voters on things like sex education and so on.
the poor old Lib Dems were so shocked they all stayed at home, and he walked the seat despite much media attention salivating at the though that he might be chopped.
Clever man - whatever you feel about his mannerisms. Don't underestimate his abilities, and the passion behind his beliefs - rare enough in politicians of the modern era.
Posted by: R UK, MEP | December 07, 2005 at 22:58
It's a real shame if there isn;t a place for John Redwood. He's matured into an effective front bench politician since his first leadership challenge, and has proved one of our best opposition spokesman, having regularly landed blows on the government concerning his portfolio.
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 07, 2005 at 23:13
"Shame he couldn't speak Welsh though."
He did at least attempt to mouth the words to the Welsh national anthem though, went down very well in Wales that/
Posted by: cfox | December 07, 2005 at 23:23
Redwood has not been sacked yet, James. Let's be patient and hope that his talents are retained. Remember that he went to Oxford and was a Fellow of All Souls. "Opus Dave" (see Guido Fawkes and Recess Monkey blogs) will love that.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | December 07, 2005 at 23:24
I supported him in 2001. But asked now, I would say that I don't think Hague, like most Tories, has ever really believed in anything except obtaining power.
Posted by: JRT | December 07, 2005 at 23:27
Sacking Redwood wouldn't be a good idea. He is a very good politician and has been very loyal recently. I e-mailed him before the leadership contest encouraging him to stand and he accepted he would never be leader. He knows he will never get the top job so DC should try and keep a balanced team and keep him in the shadow cabinet.
Posted by: Clare Lewis | December 07, 2005 at 23:31
"From what I have seen, Maude's not actually un-intelligent - He's quite lazy"
I think Cameron will have to revisit this decision first. Maude always expects others to do all the heavy lifting.
Posted by: CCHQ worker | December 07, 2005 at 23:33
May I suggest some people re-watch Francis Maude's conference speech on conservatives.com? I didn't like it the first time, but watching it again I realise how necessary it was to say those things. It was a very thoughtful contribution, IMO.
Posted by: Henry Cook | December 07, 2005 at 23:35
"I realise how necessary it was to say those things"
I agree. That is not the problem, however. The problem is after speaking from a text prepared by someone else... there the activity ends.
Posted by: CCHQ worker | December 07, 2005 at 23:42
Egotistical - quite probably.
Nonentity - quite possibly.
My qualifications don't amount to much. I did achieve a 21% swing when I stood in a local government election in 2004 and I did my best at Central Office in 2001 when most Tories pretended they weren't. Apart from that I have worked at the heart of Govt and Whitehall since 1999.
Otherwise I am just a voter, like you. A voter who understands today's Britain and that to win power we need to attend just as much to how we look as to what we say.
Looks matter I'm afraid. Millions of people vote on little else. It's like that lovely lady said on the 10 o'clock news, and I para-phrase, "the Tories have looked for so long like grumpy white old men, constantly angry and irrelevant. Cameron looks more like your older brother, much nicer and more in touch."
I apologise for for being so childish and rude about Mr Redwood in my initial post, but "lookism" is a reality that must be understood and confronted, but perhaps with a little more sympathy than I have just demonstrated.
Posted by: Richard Bailey | December 07, 2005 at 23:44
"It was a very thoughtful contribution, IMO"
I stand by my original assessment. The content was wrong and the timing was wrong.
http://beliefinbritain.blogspot.com/2005/10/change-or-die-sorry-maude-youre-wrong.html
Posted by: James Hellyer | December 08, 2005 at 00:11
"Realising that Lib Dem voters ahve no idea what Lib Dem policies actually are, he ran a very effective campaign of publicising Lib Dem policies to Lib Dem voters on things like sex education and so on.
the poor old Lib Dems were so shocked they all stayed at home, and he walked the seat despite much media attention salivating at the though that he might be chopped."
That's actually really interesting. I've always thought that this would be a good approach for the Conservatives to take. Alot of Old Labour or non-political people really have no idea about what alot of their politicians believe. All you have to do is highlight Lib Dem positions on criminals, for example, and they will most likely remark, "they don't *really* say that, do they?"
Most leftist politicians spend most of their time obfuscating what they *really* believe. A good example is what happened recently where a Labour MP spent 3 hours waffling because he didn't want the Tony Martin Bill to reach a vote. He didn't delay the bill, like Eric Forth, because he thought that his side would lose. He delayed it because he didn't want his side to win (and therefore be exposed to the public as voting against their rights).
We should spend more time highlighting what Leftist politicians believe about the general public (and, in turn, what they believe about terrorists and criminals). Don't underestimate the public's conviction about these things. They never fail to be on the conservative side of things.
Posted by: John Hustings | December 08, 2005 at 01:42
So Maude's Party conference speech was "a text prepared by someone else", was it?
Given he's meant to be the Modernisers' string puller, who's pulling HIS strings?
Boles? MacGregor? Gove? Any other ideas? Who are the real directors of this group?
Posted by: Bill Denton | December 08, 2005 at 04:57
I didnt like Maudes speech at all. It wasnt ofering anything new. It was a different version of the "nasty party" comment. He didnt even recognise that he was wrong to try and take the vote from the members. Cameron wont move Maude from the position unless he has to now.
I was annoyed to have missed his coming down here a while ago. If it had been the week before or the week after I would definitely have made it.
Ahh, the filibuster. If he doesnt like the Bill, vote against it and get more Labour MPs to vote against it. Thats how they normally do it. Its not fair play at all. In fact its shameful.
Posted by: James Maskell | December 08, 2005 at 11:23
"Cameron wont move Maude from the position unless he has to now."
Well, that may be what ends up happening. I am sure he is going to want a high performance team.
Posted by: CCHQ worker | December 08, 2005 at 16:30