Bush? Blair? Hague? Letwin?

Radio 4's Today programme is currently running a Who Runs Britain? survey and it gave me an idea...

WHO IS THE BIGGEST INFLUENCE ON DAVID CAMERON?

Stage 1: Open Nominations

Over the next few days I'd like you to use this thread to nominate an individual (living or dead, politician or otherwise) who you think is the biggest influence on David Cameron.

• Is it George W Bush?  Some believe that DC is copying George W Bush's emphasis on compassionate conservatism.  DC is also said to be a supporter of the Bush-led war on terror.

• Is it William Hague?  The former Tory leader is DC's effective deputy and helped put Mr Cameron's shadow team together.  Other leading members of the shadow cabinet - George Osborne and Liam Fox - are key allies and supporters of Mr Hague.

• Is it Oliver Letwin?  Mr Letwin is overseeing the party's policy review and Mr Cameron has already adopted Mr Letwin's cautious approach to tax relief and his Kyoto environmentalism.

• Is it Tony Blair?  Mr Cameron has himself suggested he might be the natural heir to Blair and that he would fulfil Mr Blair's reforming ambitions in ways that Gordon Brown simply won't.  Is DC adopting the Clintonian technique of triangulation as he distances himself from the old right and Brownite left?

Please use the thread below to agree or disagree with me and to nominate others...

Stage 2: The case for five nominees is made and debated

I'll then choose five nominations and invite five people to write 400 word nominations sometime next week which we'll then discuss.

Stage 3: Voting on the nominees

Following the posting and discussion of those five nominations there'll be an email vote....

Comments

[Reasonable]

I rather think he is his own man.

[PD James]

Why does he have to be influenced by anyone?

[Oberon Houston]

The Electorate.

[Graeme Archer]

As long as he's not influenced by Simon Heffer, I don't care if he gets his ideas from a teacup!

[John Ireland]

I rather think that he is being led by the nose by that well known wet, Francis Maude and his hand maiden, Teresa May who at last think that they can get their silly touchy feely liberal ideas past the post.

[Frank Young]

Way to enter into the spirit of things guys!

My nomination is Samantha Cameron and his family. Looking at David's biography it’s easy to see a privileged middle class boy who enjoyed life to excess during his Eton and Oxford days, in the style of a typical "hooray Henry".

However the effect of being married to a non-political being who sees the world through non-Tory eyes has forced him to stay in touch with reality as the electorate see it, rather than through fairly typical Tory instincts - much in the same way Blair reformed his party by being somewhat detached from it. This marriage crucially changed his instincts.

In addition to this the birth of Ivan forced him to face the harsh realities of being dependent on public services and fighting for the rights of those less fortunate than himself. I'm sure at times this forced him quite abruptly to face his harshest Tory prejudices. Tellingly he spoke up for political correctness during the leadership campaign saying he was glad he lived in a country where it’s not acceptable for "a child to be called a spastic" - this a refreshing opinion from a senior Tory.

I think the effect of his normalised family life means he sees life from a changed perspective, challenging his and others Tory instincts.

[John Hustings]

"I rather think that he is being led by the nose by that well known wet, Francis Maude and his hand maiden, Teresa May who at last think that they can get their silly touchy feely liberal ideas past the post. "

I second this. He is in subservience to the "modernising" agenda. You can represent that by any number of figures: Maude, May, Portillo etc.

[Brian Jenner]

I asked him at a hustings who his intellectual influences were and he said Hayek and John Stuart Mill (big yawn). He also mentioned Kenneth Baker, Norman Lamont and Michael Howard (God help us),

Vernon Bogdanor his politics tutor at Brasenose would have had a big influence over him - he's a wishy washy don who advocates proportional representation.

Clearly Boles, Vaizey and Gove loom large. Their Blue Books are at least something to work with. Living in Notting Hill turns your head slightly. It's a weird place. Maybe that's a big influence.

[Editor]

Someone who would prefer to be anonymous has emailed me to argue that Steve Hilton should be a nominee. SH (of GoodBusiness.co.uk) is said to always be at DC's side and his belief in corporate responsibility and environmental stewardship areleading themes of the new Tory leadership.

[John Ireland]

We will only succeed if we are who we are, the alternative to the left, socialist and liberal tendancies in British politics.

I am from a secondary school in the East End of London, I became a regular soldier (in the ranks) and then a policeman in central London. Am I not working class?

Yet I am a dedicated Conservative with a Very Big 'C'and I was the election agent for a female candidate in the last elections. Wow I am a strange fish!!!

We need Conservative leadership by a Conservative leader not reactionary politics such as Blairs.

[Jack Stone]

I would imagine that David Cameron is listening to the advice of all his many advisors and taken that which he believes will benefit the party and the country.
Personally I think this sort of debate is condesending and seems to be aimed at belittling DC by trying to give the impression that he is in someones pocket so to speak.
Please if you can`t find anything constuctive or positive to debate then be content to say nothing.

[John Ireland]

oops

[Biodun]

"My nomination is Samantha Cameron and his family."

I second this.

[kim ll sungs puzzled and depressed grandson]

I vote for Deadly Doug - why else would he be a Villa fan

[Selsdon Man]

I hope that Mr Hilton believes that companies should be responsible to their shareholders rather than stakeholders. The stakeholder culture is contaminating British business with political correctness. Until we get profits up and corporate taxes and costs down, we cannot deal with the pension black holes.

[AnnaK]

"My nomination is Samantha Cameron and his family."

I agree with this also.

[Selsdon Man]

Bush's compassionate conservatism and interventionist foreign policy are clearly a big influence.

Cameron has adopted the Clinton triangulation strategy in the hope of eclipsing the Lib Dems(and thereby return to two party politics in England) and attracting Blairite voters. In Scotland, he appears to be appealing to the devolutionists and nationalists by hinting at support for financial autonomy.

Theresa May and Francis Maude have set the candidates list policy. The Henry Jackson Society neo-con set - Gove, Vaizey and Boles - influence policy. The Letwin influence is unclear. Redistribution means taking from the rich to give the poor. Cameron and Maude appeared to disown his comments.

The key role of George Osborne, his campaign manager, cannot be understated. He will drive economic policy, especially on tax and spending. The free marketeers see him (with Hague and Fox) as on their side and will expect him to deliver real change.

To date, I would say that Osborne, Gove and Maude have been the most influential advisers. The "right" will expect their say too. The future of support of Fox and Hague will be crucial to maintaining party unity.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"As long as he's not influenced by Simon Heffer, I don't care if he gets his ideas from a teacup!"

I totally agree. I've gone of the Telegraph since he started writing for them - if I wanted the Daily Mail's scaremongering and rants, I'd buy the Daily Mail.

As Margaret Thatcher once said, 'Advisers advise, Ministers decided' - Cameron strikes me as somebody who will listen and weigh up all the arguments and make a decision. That's Leadership!

[Howard Stevenson]

I'd go with his family, Samantha and his children. My wife has epilepsy and now how difficult thinks can be for her. My son was born 9 weeks premature, with no intensive care bed for him in Leeds so we had to go to Bradford. Meeting Alisa and watching Harry been born and then watching him suffer a life threatening illness were landmark events in my life, and have changed the way I think on certain things and act on certain issues. I am sure his family will have shaped DC more than the dry rhetoric of any book or words of a advisor or supporter.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Correction: "As long as he's not influenced by Simon Heffer, I don't care if he gets his ideas from a teacup!"

I totally agree. I've gone off the Telegraph since he started writing for them - if I wanted the Daily Mail's scaremongering and rants, I'd buy the Daily Mail.

As Margaret Thatcher once said, 'Advisers advise, Ministers decide' - Cameron strikes me as somebody who will listen and weigh up all the arguments and make a decision. That's Leadership!

[AnnaK]

Editor: Now that I have thought about this debate for a while, I too find it a bit demeaning to David Cameron. You seem to be implying that he cannot think for himself.

I am thinking about joining the conservative party, and I read this blog in the hope of learning more about it, but the tone and criticism of David Cameron on this blog after only 3 weeks makes me wonder, if I should bother. I find it very strange. Its not that I think David Cameron should be above criticism but that he should be given a reasonable amount of time in which to make his mark.

[Editor]

AnnaK: I hope it's not demeaning discussion. All of us are influenced by people. That does not mean that DC is unable to think for himself.

[Selsdon Man]

You did not receive my Xmas present from CCHQ - being kicked off the Candidates List for no reason!

That is after
- 28 years loyal service to the Party
- serving as an officer at local, region and national levels
- providing unpaid advice on a key policy area to several Shadow Cabinet Members and frontbenchers and
- standing as a Parliamentary Candidate

At least being a woman with no experience in the Party, you are a certainty to get on the List.

[James Maskell]

The family circle has to be the biggest influence. I know others have pointed out the pressures on him coming from the family.

I know the thing that influenced me most was my family.

AnnaK, the criticisms we are all giving are basically because Cameron is so abrupt a change that we dont like it. Criticism is good. It proves we live in a democracy.

[Reasonable]

Anna,

Believe me, the party is behind DC. I addressed a comment to you on the '...and theory' thread.

I admire this blog and it's good to have a wide variety of blue tones reflected here, but I don't think it accurately reflects the Tory mood at present (the commenters, that is). DC won in a landslide. He is polling through the roof. He is surrounded by brilliant minds. He has attracted a Shadow Cabinet of all wings of the party. There is no briefing going on against him. The parliamentary party and shadow cabinet are united.

It's a fantastic time to be a Tory and perhaps an especially exciting time to be a Tory woman.

When considering your position I hope you'll be guided by the leader of the party, and whether or not you agree with his views, rather than commenters on any blog, even this one. Because, believe me, DC's views will prevail.

[Burkean]

One would find it easier to be enthusiastic were he to list Burke rather than, or even in addition to, Mill as an influence. While I am second to none in my admiration for the Liberal Unionist/Radical tradition in the party, one must remember that the party is first and foremost conservative. I fear Mr Cameron is forgetting the contract between the dead, the living and the yet-to-be born. Anyone who can influence him to remember that should be encouraged.

[AnnaK]

Thank you for your replies. I know that David Cameron is not perfect, nobody is .

I think I was expecting much more criticism of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and all the rest of them on this blog.

[Reasonable]

Punch and Judy politics is dead, remember? :)

[Frank Young]

AnnaK don't be despondent, join the party and get involved!

The sometimes negative comments on this site reflect one of the greatest historical strengths of our party, being broad church.

There are people with all sorts of different views helping out during election times, knocking on doors and delivering leaflets all fighting for our party.

Whenever there is great change there is always resistance and I think this site is designed to be a safe democratic environment for members to discuss their differing views.

I'm sure the party would be proud to have you as a member. Make sure you get in touch with your local candidate/M.P. and express your interest.

[Derek]

Very sorry indeed, Selsdon, to read your news. Everyone deserves an explanation for a decision like that.

AnnaK, we tend to discuss our own differences here, as it is taken for granted that we are opposed to Blair and Kennedy. What we are doing is refining our own party to make it fit our own idea of how it ought to be. Rather like a parent grooming a child for future success!

I too have heard that Steve Hilton is a big influence on DC, but let's hope that through this very influential site we can have some influence. Maybe our esteemed editor should be on the shortlist?

[Selsdon Man]

Thank you for your kind words, Derek. It has ruined my Xmas and there are many others who have received similar "presents" - mainly white, middle class males who are considered unrepresentative of modern Britain. I am considering my political future and its a pretty bleak prospect.

[Biodun]

Selsdon man,
If you don't mind me asking, in how many elections did you stand as a PPC?

[John Ireland]

I don't like Cameron but he is the democratically elected leader of the party and I accept that as a faithful Party member and still do my best to win. I don't have to be a robot like the new labour drones and I hope that some of our views are taken on board by our leadership, after all, that is the reason behind this blog, isnt it?

[Selsdon Man]

Biodun - I stood in one election.

I would have stood in another if the Candidates Department had not lost an updated CV and sent out an old one with out-of-date contact details to constituency associations.

[Cllr Graham Smith]

I suggest that Tony Blair has a very big influence on David Cameron's behaviour, as has John Humphrys and his colleagues on the Today radio programme.

Other than that, I tend to agree with those who place his wife and children high up on the list.

I have formed the impression that, despite apparently being largely at ease with the different styles and policies followed by the leaders he has served so faithfully in the past, David Cameron is very much his own man and that for the next couple of years he is likely to exert a much bigger influence on most of the politicans and political advisers so far nominated than they will be on him.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Lots of good people, including several friends, have been dropped from the List. One, who is on my Executive, wants to resign from the Party because she feels hurt and let down by CCHQ (having fought an ultra-safe Labour seat in Yorkshire at the last GE). Local Associations, especially small ones like Tottenham, can't afford to lose key activists thanks to decisions made by un-elected ACDs and Old Codgers at CCHQ. It's OK if they're 'no good' but many would have made excellent candidates and MPs.

[Richard Allen]

Selsdon Man

I'd just like to add my sympathies. Obviously I can't comment on the justification of the decision (since I don't know you) but as a matter of common courtesy anyone dropped from the list should be given a good explanation in a face to face meeting.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

And I should have added that one cannot appeal against CCHQ. Simon Mort, a V-P of the Party and Head of Candidates, refuses to return calls and emails. Likewise Andrew Parkes, a paid member of staff. Cameron should take a broom to Central Office and start afresh - there are too many people who are too comfortable AND treat volunteers with contempt!

[Biodun]

Selsdon man,
Sorry to hear that.
How did you find out?
Was there no written explanation?

Or did you find your profile removed from the conservatives.com website?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Dropped candidates should ask to see their files under, I think, the Data Protection Act. Not sure if information can be obtained via the Freedom of Information Act?

[Selsdon Man]

Justin, are you not referring to David Park? Others are experiencing the phone problems you refer to. It has been going on since the cull began.

I cannot comment on the decision either, Richard - no reason was given, just that the list has to "evolve over time". I guess that I am considered a Thatcherite dinosaur!

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

On a tangent somewhat, but London-based candidates shouldn't even be considered for safe Labour seats in Yorkshire.

If we are to rebuild in Labour areas and inner-cities we must be selecting local candidates with knowledge of those areas and the ability to build up a local profile - it would have a significant galvanising effect on both the local associations and on our prospects in local government in those areas. Over time you might even grab the odd shock - having an established local would undoubtedly help if there was a by-election, and look at how some of the biggest surprise Labour MPs elected in 1997 have managed to cling on against the odds for one and even two terms in some cases (Selby springs to mind).

The last thing local associations in the north need is someone who has no affinity with the local area, whose address on the ballot paper is hundreds of miles away, and who appears for a few weeks just before the election.

I don't buy the "earn your spurs by standing in a Labour seat". If you're good enough and you are well matched to a seat, you're in.

[James Maskell]

Thats disgraceful. This is the problem weve all said from the start, that CCO is more worries about matching the right characteristics rather than allowing meritocracy decide.

And whats worse, this is the sort of stuff that the people of Britain dont know about unless they look for it themselves.

The Party needs everyone it can get, otherwise the Patry will be unrepresentative. Maude's reforms are undemocratic and anti-meritocratic. Maude said at the Conference that people love policies until they find out its ours. The policy of reverse sexual discrimination is a policy which the people will detest as soon as they hear it...when they find out its the Conservatives', they wont be suprized one bit.

Selsdon, my advice is dont let it hold you back. CCO couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery let alone a set of the right candidates. Keep on fighting for it. You'll get your shot.

[Editor]

If you like folks I'll set up another thread on the GoldList - perhaps Selsdon Man/ Justin Hinchcliffe would like to write something but this thread is really going off course... Can we focus on nominations for 'Biggest Influence' here? Thanks.

[Selsdon Man]

Biodun, the rejects got a standard letter with no reason given other than the "evolve" comment.

Justin, I know of one former candidate that saw his file under supervision at CCHQ. It was virtually empty - the contents had been shredded!

Iain, I agree with you about local candidates but my local target seat did not even interview me! They chose a CCHQ researcher and the Lib Dem majority increased by over 2000!

[James Maskell]

Sounds like a good idea Editor.

[Selsdon Man]

I have said all I want to Ed.

The point is that Cameron is being influenced by those who are purging the Candidates List. This process started under Michael Howard who must have approved it.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Iain, I kind of agree but there are parts of the country, particularly in the North of England, where the Conservative Party doesn't exist! Had my friend not stood there, they probably would not have had a candidate (nobody else applied despite this seat being advertised). Having an ‘A List’ will make it harder for members to apply for local seats. I am told that I would make a good candidate for my own constituency (Tottenham) as I have lived here all my life and know what the local issues are. I know that I’d fair better than some councillor from Kensington and Chelsea but CCHQ wouldn't see it like that.

[Sean Fear]

I too am sorry to hear that Selsdon Man, but sadly unsurprised. I am aware of several former MPs on the Approved List who have been treated with great discourtesy. CCO does not have a good record of behaviour towards those who make sacrifices for the party.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Going back to the main discussion, I wonder if Micheal Howard is in the back seat?

[Selsdon Man]

Going back to the influence point. I believe that Howard's party reforms will be be implemented by Cameron's CCHQ team. Horsham and Crawley associations are merging now.

I wonder what the gay Conservatives (especially Margot James) think of Sayeeda Warsi's appointment as a Party VC. Stonewall attacked her for issuing homophobic literature when she was a PPC in Dewsbury (and Michael Howard's ethnic adviser). These appointees and their influence are significant in this debate.

[War Room Alumnus]

I was under the impression that the candidates list was re-started after each election. Certainly I knew someone who performed well as a candidate in 2001 who had to be re-interviewed and to submit to the new assessment process before being allowed to be on the the list used in 2005. I agree though that you should be able to receive some explanation but suggest this is more likely to be forthcoming if you seek it by suggesting that you are enthusiastic to remain on the list, rather than having a right to be there.

[Sean Fear]

The merger of one strong and one weak association is not such a bad idea SM, although ironically our result in Crawley was much better than our result in Horsham on May 5th.

I wouldn't count on the changes to the party structure being voted through, however.

[Richard Gibbs]

I am tempted to say that he is probably influenced by a combination of most of those people already mentioned. It's obvious that he draws much from his family, but I think the fact that he is influenced by what appears genuinely to be in the widest interest, tells us he isn't just in hoc to one or two people. One of the reasons that the Conservative Party has been in the wilderness for some years now, is because successive leaderships have appeared to only be in tune with narrow, party interests. The way of electoral success is to cast the net wider than just the party and it's traditional supporters; I know some will disagree vehemently, but the more DC is influenced from outside of traditional circles, the better. That doesn't mean that longstanding party members should be ignored, far from it, but I for one am glad that DC appears to be influenced by the public, his family and successful politicians from all points of the spectrum. Yes, that does and must include Tony Blair's good points. After all, New Labour have aped much of centre ground Conservative policy and we have Blair has enjoyed electoral success for many years. To say that there is nothing to learn from this, nothing to be influenced by, would be folly indeed.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

We gay/gay-friendly Conservatives will be watching Sayeeda Warsi like a Hawk! If she says anything remotely homophobic, we'll be on to DC and Maude like a flash. Ditto Tebbitt.

[Selsdon Man]

"I agree though that you should be able to receive some explanation but suggest this is more likely to be forthcoming if you seek it by suggesting that you are enthusiastic to remain on the list, rather than having a right to be there."

My letter told me the decision could not be reconsidered before the next Parliament and it will be at the discretion of the Officers of the Party to decide whether I can re-apply. Enthusiasm to remain on the list, much as I have it, is therefore of no use, War Room Alumnus.

The reality is that around 650 of the party's most committed and energetic activists have been culled by those advising Mr Cameron. Dare I question their wisdom and strategy for winning the next election?

[Editor]

Can we please stay on the subject of this thread!?

[Selsdon Man]

The point is that the most influential advisers are probably those with power at CCHQ editor. That means Mr Maude and the party Vice-Chairmen. We have every right to question their actions as it affects our lives as Conservative members and supporters.

[James Maskell]

Im not sure I buy the idea of Howard as a major influence on Cameron. Howard has lots of experience obviously, but politically they dont match. Howard wouldnt be seen dead saying half the things Camerons been saying.

Howard has proably been giving advice on doing PMQs and generally how to keep staff. Howard's tough Tory views dont really marry very well with the softer views of Cameron.

[Goldie]

It's a very old pattern. A quasi-aristocrat guilty of his social position embracing socialism to atone for his sins.

[Ian Sider]

I nominate Tim Montgomerie as the greatest influence on the people who have had the greatest influence on David Cameron.

[R UK]

Liam Fox. Would DC have committed himself to leave the EPP otherwise?

[R UK]

Correction. IDS who was first to commit to quitting the EPP, plus he founded the Centre For Social Justice, on which all is now based - plus IDS thrust Letwyn into the limelight. IDS is the father of Cameron.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Nominations:-

1) Michael Howard
2) Steve Hilton
3) George Osbourne
4) Francis Maude
5) Nick Boles

[Editor]

Can you explain why briefly, Jonathan? Thanks.

[new tory]

In this order: Letwin, Bush, Blair, and, least of all, Hague.

These people are Big Government conservatives. They are copying Blair by trying to position themselves, and therefore our party, between him and where people perceive the Conservative Party. People will have their views about that but it is not a particularly profound approach and it is most certainly not what Thatcher and Joseph did in the 70s in a much more intellectually inhospitable environment.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Hmmmm - not really in any inner circle so to speak but here goes:-

I think Howard backed Cameron and as such any new leader particularly one who is seen to be young and inexperienced would be influenced by the views of those who went before them. As such I think Howard may well be giving DC advice which DC will gratefully receive

2) I believe (please correct of I am wrong) that Steve Hilton is Camerons Alistair Campbell - and as such may well become his most trusted adviser.

3)Assume that he is both a friend and almost political equal to Cameron. Whereas Blair and Brown hate eachother (depending what day it is) - our "dream team" probably get on well and take advice from each other on a regular basis

4)Cameron needs to reform the party and therefore I always believed he would need a strong ally as party Chairman - and as such Francis Maude will have to be close to DC.

5) Nick Boles - ex Hove candidate and instrumental in C/Change / Policy Exchange - I think this may well be the most influential group within the Cameron leadership (Excluding the EXCELLENT Centre for Social Justice of course). I see Nicholas Boles as someone who has the ear of DC.

Again - just the views of someone from "OOp North" but interested to hear others views on these suggestions.

[Jaz]

Bush and Blair

[Deckchair of despair]

There seems to be some slight confusion here: one can be influenced on different matters by different people. In particular, one can be influenced on matters of substance by one group of people, and on matters of technique or methods of implementation by another, quite different group.
On the latter - technique, or 'style' - DC seems to me to be most influenced by Blair and Clinton - which technique, at its worst, is 'talk a good talk, but don't worry about how you'll actually do anything, as it may never happen'.
On the former - substance - one can only assume that Maude and Letwin figure in there somewhere, as he has one as party chairman and the other as head of policy. This is a bit worrying, as the substance of what DC has to say is of course the most important thing.
On the question of how to be head of the party, face up to the government etc, I imagine he is taking advice from the last three incumbents, Hague, IDS and Howard.

[Sally Rideout Baker]

Funny no one has mentioned the "Church of England"

[a-tracy]

Blair and Clinton on the terms of style and delivery, and why not it was successful for them.

The danger is they were both full of false promises.

Michael Howard - who I feel was instrumental in creating the situation for Cameron to come forward in the way he did, Dave not being ready a couple of years ago.

His chums like Osborne, Grove, Whetstone, Boris, Letwin.

and finally all his family and friends

[James Hellyer]

Well, he's got the loser mentality and agenda of Letwin, Maude and May.

[Howard Stevenson]

Just been thinking about this. Maybe its really Socialism. He his a self avowed Smiths fan. Morrisey was part of the red wedge of the early eighties along with Billy Bragg and Paul Weller.

Just think, a young Cameron at Eton reads Das Kapital, listens to the afformentioned music, it sets up his Socialist credentionals for life.

But he sees whats going on in the Labour party with the militant tendancy. He sees the Tories led by the irrepresable Mrs T. Its then as he goes off to University that he hatches his plan to destory the Tory party from the inside. After Uni, he gets a job in PR, so he learns how to pass rubbish off to people and make them think its great. He does some work as a special advisor to Norman Lamont, and does his best work to date - getting the pound out of the ERM.

Later in 2001 he becomes MP for Witney. When Michael Howard becomes leader, he gets a job advising him. The rest as they say is history.

[Peter Franklin]

James Hellyer: "Well, he's got the loser mentality and agenda of Letwin, Maude and May."

The loser mentality, James? I'd say the losers are those that can't get away from the mentality that lost us three elections in a row.

[James Hellyer]

No Peter, a loser mentality is one where you have no faith in your agenda's ability to win, and so adopt the language and policies of the opposition. This is what Cameron has done.

" I'd say the losers are those that can't get away from the mentality that lost us three elections in a row."

And this is just lazy nonsense. Nobody is advocating fighting campaigns like in 2001 and 2005, merely learning the right lessons from them - it was inconsistency, stridency, and the failure to offer alternatives on the issues that mattered to people that cost those elections, not Conservative policies. After all, those policies can hardly be blamed if we never tried to actually sell them.

[RodS]

Who is pulling David Cameron's strings ? - good question, perhaps the only important question at the moment.

It reminds me of end of the film "The Candidate" when Robert Redford as the young, charismatic presidential contender, hears his election win announced - and turning to his back-room fixers says 'What do we do now ?'

The response so far has been to gamble that core supporters will live with abandoning well established policy principles in an effort to pull in new voters/customers (both M&S and Sainsbury's tried this, came unstuck and went back to core values)

But DC is going too far.The threatened retreat from a clear cut policy on immigration control,for example,is highly 'symbolic'but wrong.

We have now left the BNP as the only party with an 'intellectually honest' policy position.

I nominate Yougov, Populus and the rest of the polls as the biggest (transitory) influence.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I'd say David Cameron is a graduate of the John Fitzgerald Kennedy (Charm/Smarm) School of Politics, like those other well-known alumni Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Michael Portillo.

[John Hustings]

I am honestly beginning to think that a split in the Tory Party would be a good thing. The Modernisers can go one way, and the real Tories another. You might say, "but this will set Conservativism back for generations", but that is already what we are facing.

It seems irrelevant to me right now which Blairite party is in government, and more important that we have a party that genuinely represents conservative views.

[Editor]

RodS: "We have now left the BNP as the only party with an 'intellectually honest' policy position."

Intellectually honest? Repugnant more like!

RodS: "I nominate Yougov, Populus and the rest of the polls as the biggest (transitory) influence."

A good thought.

[Peter Franklin]

James, I guess we might have different agendas or at least a large area of non-overlap. Nevertheless I'd be interested to hear just how you would sell your agenda in a significantly different way to 2001 and 2005 (and needless to say differently from David Cameron).

[David Sergeant]

I find this blog incredible. Comments about splits between "modernisers" and " real Tories" are plain daft, certainly at this stage. Can't "real Tories" get into their heads that the electors almost hate them. (The nasty party.) Even Tory policies on the NHS go down well until people realise they are supported by "real Tories"

"Real Tories" seem more interested in messing up party popularity than trying to beat the left.

[Kate Castle]

"Comments about splits between "modernisers" and " real Tories" are plain daft,"

I agree, until Cameron won, I had begun to wonder if the best answer for the future was to see the party split, roughly speaking into a 'one nation' party and an 'old right'. Now we have a leader with the backing of those ranging from Cornerstone to Alan Duncan & Oliver Letwin. The party is being revived, I hope everyone stays the course but I won't shed any tears over a small amount of collatoral damage from some of the critics of the right who continue to snipe at Cameron.

[John Hustings]

"Can't "real Tories" get into their heads that the electors almost hate them. (The nasty party.)"

Where did that term "nasty party" come from?

Theresa May of course.

Well that taught us all a lesson didn't it! And it was just sooo constructive.

And what evidence do you have that the public just *loves* those Tory modernisers and that it's the old-style Tories they hate? Stephen Norris never won the London mayoral election, and he can stand for re-election every chance he gets against Ken Livingstone and he'll still lose. Michael Portillo's personal popularity has never been particularly high, no matter how hard he has tried to ingratiate himself with the public.

If Cameron is doing well, it is not because he is a "moderniser". I have yet to see a public poll that says it wants more immigration, relaxed drug laws, positive discrimination for women and ethnic minorities, and lots more progressive sex education in schools!!

"Even Tory policies on the NHS go down well until people realise they are supported by "real Tories""

And so Cameron's answer is to junk previous Tory Policies with regard to the NHS. That makes sense, doesn't it?

""Real Tories" seem more interested in messing up party popularity than trying to beat the left."

We have already been beaten. The emergence of Cameron is the ultimate proof of that.

[John Hustings]

""Real Tories" seem more interested in messing up party popularity than trying to beat the left."

Oh, and it was Theresa May (NOT a "real Tory") who dubbed us the nasty party. That really helped our party popularity!

[James Maskell]

And the Conservatives werent the Nasty Party back then?

[london tory]

"Stephen Norris never won the London mayoral election"

But his share of the vote did go up in 2004. That of the other Conservative candidates went down on 2000.

[Neil C]

Having just read the collection of essays contained in 'a blue tommorow' edited by Ed Vaisey & Michael Gove et al., I have to say that the above mentioned and also Nick Boles, who contributes to the book, would be my choice for a major influence on DC. The book about Conservatism in the future was written just after the 2001 election, but read in the present Tory political climate, it appears much more relevant to the Tory party today than it did then!! Anybody who has not read it, I urge to do so, as it appears to me to be the blueprint for David Cameroon's reign, it really is as if the book was written on December 6th 2005!!??

[James Hellyer]

"Can't "real Tories" get into their heads that the electors almost hate them. (The nasty party.)"

Not they don't. They disliked the incompetence and corruption of the Major era, the strident irrelevance of the Hague era, and the strident and monomanical Howard era.

If a party displays an unhealthy interest in immigration (with handy slogans for the press like "what part of 'send them back' don't you understand", courtesy of Bob Spink), and on the occasions where it does talk about something else, confines itself to cries of "Carry on Matron" and "liar", it's hardly surprisng that policies are damaged by association with it.

But that's not to do with it being right wing, that's to do with a narrow agenda expressed stridently.

Sadly it seems that Cameron's fix is to abandon perfectly good policies as well as the stridency. So rather than present our ideas well, he's left just presenting himself, and has apparently learned the wrong lesson from those defeats. But that's hardly surprising - his coterie consists of the people who gave the media the pharse "the nasty party"...

[David Sergeant]

All you seem to have done is give reasons for Tories being hated. But I agree, it was a combination of a limited agenda and strident language. So how do you deal with it 4 years off a general election? You make nice comfortable statements to retune with the electorate pending specific policies. Er, heck, that's what they might be doing!

I would suggest that another reason for being hated is that few attempts has been made to defend the actions of the 18 years and electors see that as disloyal. E.g. if the increase in NHS funding was publicised it would be far harder for Labour to go on about Tory cuts.

[James Hellyer]

"All you seem to have done is give reasons for Tories being hated."

No, I've given reasons why the Conservatives were disliked, as opposed to the party's right as had previously been asserted as a justification for abandoning any right wing policies. As the party's right cannot be held responsible for the last few election debacles, these attempts by others in the party to destroy their agenda by association are simply disingeneous.

"You make nice comfortable statements to retune with the electorate pending specific policies. Er, heck, that's what they might be doing!"

Except that's not what he's been doing. Cameron, Letwin & co. have all pre-empted the policy review by disowning and abandoning policies on education reform, market based reforms of the NHS, immigration controls, and so on.

[David Sergeant]

OK to be constructive I will accept your assessment that we became dislike instead of hated. I worry about defing people as left or right of the party but everyone accepts that Cameron is to to the left and Hague and Howard to the right. I am mystified how you can say the right were not involved in losing elections.

By the way I thought Teresa May was describing what people thought of us, not what she thought. Surely facing up to political reality is important.

It is your opinion that assorted policies are being junked. Surely we should wait to see what emerges a policies.

I repeat, in my view the problem is mainly due to us letting Labour write history, particularly of the 18 years. I wonder if we were half as enthusiastic at defending ourselves and attacking Labour as attacking ourselves if the last 10 years of history would have been different.

[James Hellyer]

"I worry about defing people as left or right of the party but everyone accepts that Cameron is to to the left and Hague and Howard to the right.

William Hague's leadership was inconsistent. He should have crafted a simple message and hammered it home repeatedly, instead he changed tack constantly and ended up fighting a general election campaign on the issue of saving the pound, which had already been made a non-issue by the government's referendum pledge. Although the campaign also headlined tax cuts, these were put forward by Michael Portillo - their least enthusiastic and effective proponet.

As a leadership, it offers nothing to support one view or the other on policy because it was so inconsistent and had so any elements of policy undermined by the shadow ministers who were supposed to be selling them.

By contrast, Michael Howard's leadership was most definitely not right wing. Although Michael Howard himself was perceived as a hardline right winger, his policy plaform saw
him accept the size of the state had grown to under Labour, downplay or ignore policies on choice, and as Shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin copied Brown's plan to raise the tax burden and pledged to outspend Labour.

Howard was strident in the way he argued for his narrow agenda (a lot was said about immigration because it was one of the few areas where our policy was distinctive), but that doesn't equate to a right of centre agenda. Deferring tax rises are not the same as lowering the tax burden!

"I am mystified how you can say the right were not involved in losing elections."

I didn't say that. I said a right wing policy agenda cannot be blamed for losing elections when it was never actually argued - never mind with conviction!

"By the way I thought Teresa May was describing what people thought of us, not what she thought."

That was supposedly the intent, but the enthusiasm with which she goes to the media to accuse Conservatism of sexism and racism would tend to indicate that actually believes this stuff. Indeed if you read her speech, she does buy into an awful lot of the accusations.

It's worth remembering that the day after Michael Howard told the party that we aren't the nasty party, Thereas May was on the Today Programme accussing Conservatives of being mysonginists.

"Surely facing up to political reality is important."

It's not reality, it's the modernisers willing acceptance of Labour's smears.

"It is your opinion that assorted policies are being junked. Surely we should wait to see what emerges a policies."

It's not my opinion, it's David Cameron's and Oliver Letwin's words!

[James Hellyer]

Obviously paragraph one should have ended:

"I worry about defing people as left or right of the party but everyone accepts that Cameron is to to the left and Hague and Howard to the right."

[Annabel Herriott]

IDC is his own man. Papers today.."iron fist in a velvet glove" I loved that. Perfect description. I think DC appeared from under the radar as it were, because he has a resonance with the British people. There is nothing so strong as a person who,s time has come. I think that was said about Yeltsin on his tank, but DC doesnt need a tank!being initially opposed, usually by the blimps and blue rinses,wont stop him. I feel he is used to it. In the tory party, the Collective usually has a pop at the individual, and he is probably well prepared for it.This blog is a better way to rant at each other rather than undermining and then dumping, as we have done in the past. Five leaders in whatever years, was it??? Incidentally, when the BNP arrive at the count, they look more like a deputation from the Mafia than anything intellectually honest!

[Sean Fear]

"By the way I thought Teresa May was describing what people thought of us, not what she thought. Surely facing up to political reality is important"

She gave our opponents a very handy stick with which to beat us. Labour and Lib Dem councillors in Hertsmere delighted in repeating the phrase.

It's a curious feature that people like Theresa May believe that the way to persuade Conservatives that they're right is to preach at them, while believing that the electorate are turned off by people who preach at them.

[Mike Smith]

>>And what evidence do you have that the public just *loves* those Tory modernisers and that it's the old-style Tories they hate?<<

The Tories the public 'loved to hate' were the various parliamentarians dubbed 'sleaze-merchants' by the popular press. More generally, and not without justificatioon the party simultaneously acquired a reputation for economic mismanagement and private greed, hence, exit Major and Co.

I don't recall any Tory MP losing his seat because he was 'racist', homophobic etc. That's all part of the mythology created by the likes of Mrs May to shovel the responsibility for Tory failure onto the shoulders of someone else, in this case the allegedly 'reactionary' grassroots.

Presumably now these same people have voted for the 'moderniser' Cameron the myth will have to be fine tuned.

[owly]

As a Conservative only recently inspired to join in with the party properly and take a more active role since David Cameron took over, I feel its a huge shame so many right-right-right Tories are so determined to disparage him - at any cost. Personally, I agree with everything he has done so far, including dropping those vote-losing policies which made me and a great many people I know really hesitate about the party big time, has been right on the money. He's embarrasing Tony at every turn, inspiring more people to join and take an active role than ever before, stealing ground from Labour all over the place already, and many of you guys are still trying to knock him down!
The Conservative party has been unelectable. Full stop. The staunch right-wing "old" tories can whine all they like, their opinions count for nothing if the party doesn't win power. Their ideals don't work anymore, the country is too Labour-ised. Centre-ground Conservatives, the bracket I consider myself to fall into, are the face of the party now. Get over it.

On the topic of the original thread, I think whoever nominated Samantha and the family were right. Also Boris - David wouldn't have stood for leader had Boris not threatened to - or so it was joked!

[Peter]

I think Portillo may have been a great influence to start with but feel that whats left of that group within Parliment is know the driving force behind Cameron know?

[John Moss]

No leader since Mrs Thatcher has managed to achieve that magic thing, summed up neatly by the analogy, "they may not know the words to the song, but they can hum the tune".

Not many people liked Thatcher, but they understood that the "centre ground" issues were the economy and defence and that she had an approach to those things which "tuned" with theirs. They had the added credibility of being consistent with the image of the Conservatives that they had and which was presented back to them by the media.

What concerns me about Cameron's agenda is that while he is absolutely correct that the centre ground now is "social justice", mainly expressed in terms of health and education, he will fail this last and most crucial test, namely that our proposals in these areas need to be credible and that if they are too socialist, he will fail because people don't believe us.

Earlier, somebody said that our policies were seen as OK by the electorate in polling, but were tainted by being associated with us. That suggests to me that we need to present them better, get them endorsed more and - to use the Skoda comparison - re-build our brand by demonstrating to people over and over again that lots of clever people actually think we're right.

This then not only places us firmly on the centre ground ISSUES, but allows us to offer CONSERVATIVE solutions, which on the evidence alluded to above, are potentially popular. We also pass the "humming the tune" test. These sound like Tory policies, so the electorate should believe that we will probably stick to them.

So, to get to the point, I think Mrs T is probably the biggest influence on Cameron, because he is trying to get people "humming our tune". He has also recognised that the people who need to do that are the lapsed Conservative voters and the young and undecideds/waiverers. What worries me is he might be finding support, but is he setting us up as the next generation of Conservatives who have been forced to buy into the agenda set by a socialist government and, ultimately, there will need to be another Mrs T to sort out the mess when the inevitable collapse of structures based on that concensus, occurs?

[Ted]

re Nasty Party - on politicalbetting.com there is a thread discussing if Conservative support is underestimated.
Reason for underestimation are two
- that phone surveys pick up more Labour supporters
- belief that voters aren't willing to admit to either intention to vote or past votes for the Conservatives.

Why are people shy of admitting being Conservative voters even in a non-attributable survey? Could it be that they are ashamed of admitting to this? Is that because the Tories are the nice party? no I'd suggest that there was (note was) an aura of the nasty party about us - DC in matter of weeks seems to have dispelled a lot of this.