« IDS says Brown's policies are not helping the most excluded | Main | Labour claim victory after Cameron abandons patient's passport »

Comments

Is it really so 'right wing' to question the propriety of rejecting so many long-held policies and manifesto commitments? Or is it just, well, Conservative?

I'm surprised that - unless I've missed it, which is possible - no member of the parliamentary party has yet had the courage to speak up against Cameron's odder notions. Perhaps we could start a competition - for instance, who's going to be the first to resign from the shadow cabinet?


Quite so, Mike.

"Mr Randall ends his column with strong criticism of Mr Cameron's role in the £1.2 billion OnDigital disaster."

Boris Johnson's wrote an article for the Telegraph not long ago, which lambasted businessmen who use bancruptcy laws to pick themselves up after a fall and go on to make millions without a thought for the little people their ventures hurt.

I wonder if he feels this way about the directors who ran ITV Digital? They threw a billion pounds of shareholders' money into the project - including £100k at the PR people who designed BA's muti-ethnic tail fins to come up with 'On Digital' (which they later dropped in favour of ITV Digital - seriously devaluing the ITV brand).

Then they liquidated the company, ruining many lower football league clubs, whom they had negociated a contract with. Finally the liquidators, Grant Thornton, insisted the people who had been given free set-top boxes should pay £40 for them, despite the service having been cancelled.

Surely the directors at Carlton and Granada who instigated the project shouldn't just walk away to better fortunes?

And who was the Executive Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton at this time?

David Cameron.

Still, I expect consistency is beyond some people.

Whilst some of Cameron's pronouncements might, superficially, seem to be directed towards fixing what Liam Fox identified as our "broken society", I can't believe that the good Doctor is entirely happy with the early signs of DC's economic 'policy'.

Dr. Fox is speaking at a Burns Supper, run by Leominster CA, on 27th January - so I'll take the opportunity to ask him.

Cameron will be happy to take criticism from these three I think. He will be able to point out out articles like this when Gordon Brown calls him 'the same old rightwinger he always has been'.
Jonathan Colletts move to News International is far more significant than a Seltzer article in the Guardian(?!).Murdoch will always back a winner and unless Cameron blows it completely I think we may see the Sun backing us for the first time since 1992.
Randalls piece was a bit premature to say the least.Has Cameron declared himself anti big business?If he has I must have missed it.
Heffer was as he always is these days, utterly predictable and very boring.

Those of us who voted for David Davis knew this would happen. Welcome to David Cameron's Conservatives!

Give the guy a chance! How long has he been leader? The point is that the party at large thinks the Tory party is ONLY about tax cuts, and nout else. So he is right to focus on the things we haven't focused on traditionally, so long as he comes back to the core values at some point; and I don't care when that is.

If Cameron has got Simon Heffer's back up, he must be on the right tracks.

Like or not, we have got to get people who voted Labour for the last three times to vote Conservative. This can only be done from the centre.

Oh here we go now with the 'I told you sos'. Isn't the Tory Party just wonderful sometimes. No wonder we've been in opposition so long.

The "How long has he been leader for" excuse can only last so long. Hes coming out with policies and we are criticising them because thats what we do. If we all agreed with him then what would the point of this site be?

"So he is right to focus on the things we haven't focused on traditionally..."

Indeed, but Cameron's not just doing that, is he? He's also junking Conservative policies, which are often among the few good ones bequeathed to us by the Howard interregnum.

Nice to see Simple Simon up to his usual tricks again. What made me laugh was the opening to his article along the lines of 'people are expecting me to rant about Cameron and co, but their antics are not worthy of any comment from an intellectual god like myself', which was followed by the rest of his article, which was, quelle surprise, a rant about Cameron and co. Classic.

Malcolm, it isn't that easy to swat away Randall's criticisms about Cameron's time at Carlton. I am sure that Labour will be revisiting this area. It's a much more fruitful seam to mine than the old stuff about Black Wednesday.

The crux of the Cameron strategy is to assume that you can stick two fingers up to your core vote who have nowhere else to go; and just rely on wooing the (by definition volatile) floating vote to get you over the line. To a degree, but only to a degree, this is what Blair did. The problem for DC is that the assumptions underpinning Blair's strategy don't work for DC. The Conservative "core" vote is much less solid than Labour's especially as (a) a lot of them will be ushered offstage by the Grim Reaper between now and 2009; (b) there are fewer "tribal" Tories than "tribal" Labour voters; and (c) Tory heartland constituencies have lower incumbent majorities because they are bigger than their Labour equivalents. UKIP and the Lib Dems know all of this very well. I can see Cameron getting up to the high thirties but this is nowhere near good enough to oust Labour. If he makes any further headway, then Labour and the Lib Dems will do a deal on PR......at which point, to use a technical term, the Tories are well and truly f*****.


It's fine to address issues which we have rarely addressed before if you can actually apply good Conservative policies to them (such as domestic and international poverty).

It's not so fine when you junk perfectly good Conservative policies (such as the Patients' Passport, or restrictions on immigration).

As far as I can see DC is taking every aspect of Tory policy that the media and the other parties have used to bash Tories and changing it for the better.

You know what I mean tax cuts over public service investment, don't care for the environment, only care about the rich.

How many new voters are there going to be by the next election that will look at the old Labour party and the new fresh Tories and will make their voting decision on that not on what Thatcher did.

Cameron is playing for the 2009 election. He is currently trying to change the image of the party, whilst the poilcy groups he has set up generate new ideas.

Personally this is ok for me. He is also managing to create headlines and key the Tory party's profile high. So far the 'boy's done good', and could not be described as 'same old' Tory by Labour or the media. He certainly isn't Hague/IDS/Howard with hair.

Let's not worry too much about the detail, there is plenty of time for that. Keep up the good work Dave!

"You know what I mean tax cuts over public service investment..."

What he's actually doing is surrendering arguments to Labour, just as Letwin did at the last election. Accepting that the money poured into the public services is investment just makes any changes all the harder to argue, because it legitimises Labour's rhetoric about "cuts" in services.

"whilst the poilcy groups he has set up generate new ideas"

Except they aren't going to, are they? Do you seriously think that if John Redwood's economy taskforce comes back recommending a big dose of deregulation and tax cuts, that Letwin and co. will suddenly change their tunes?

well said rob c

And we are talking in part about jeff Randall. I'm not sure what he knows first hand about business, but as a Director of a small company myself - big business trys desparately to crush the small business and so I agree totally in examining big business.

Cameron ran his campaign on the proposition that a move to the centre was required if we are to win an election. He won a big majority on this basic centrist premise.

This is what he is now doing.

While some, myself included, may miss such policies as the NHS passport Cameron was explicit about dumping this during his campaign as it sent an-anti NHS message to the electorate and reinforced a Labour defininition of our positioning.

I quite liked the idea, but of course for that policy to become reality we would have to win an election. In case anyone missed it we haven't done that since 1992!

Right now Cameron is challanging assumptions about himself and the conservative party. He is talking about issues not associated with the party in the minds of the public and defusing the "same old tory" line of attack.

If we wish to see a conservative government again this must happen.

If we want to take country with us we must where they are not where we wish they were.

If his current course is more than PR, we need to worry. He is sticking to the Blair Nanny State approach.

If however it is just a ruse to get people to listen to us then I will be happy.

My thoughts on his remarks about Mrs Thatcher can be seen here:
www.oncemore.co.uk

The recent changes in the direction taken by the Conservative Party should come as no surprise. It was utterly predictable ever since David Cameron uttered that meaningless mantra - 'modern compassionate Conservatism'. Only individuals can be compassionate. As used by a politician the word can have only one meaning: "I want to spend more of your money".

As Irwin Stelzer says, we have indeed arrived at new consensus - with the state destined to remain a bloated presence whoever is in power. We had 'Butskellism' in the 1950s/1960s: it looks as if we are now entering the era of 'Blameronism'.

Alice Miles in the Times (with another not very DC supportive article) does get to the crux of the difference between TB's & DC's problems with public perception of their respective parties.

The public recognised Labour's "heart" was in the right place but didn't like its socialist, ideological "head" so TB had to change that to social democrat, more right wing, accepting Thatcher's settlement.

With ourselves people seem to accept our "head" - the small c conservative approach - but didn't see a "heart". So DCs approach is to show we care about the soft issues.

I'm happy with that but am concerned we don't lose the core conservative approach to the position of the individual and the state - recognising that while we help it's about helping people back towards self reliance, self respect, self empowerment off dependency where possible.

It's all down to how the policy forums enact a more positive, people friendly approach which isn't about more tax payers cash, more social engineering driven from the centre, more government .

Simon Heffer is right to attack Michael Gove for his pro-immigration comments. I used to like Gove's journalism but he now seems to be a cheerleader for a return to the Macmillan/Heath style of Conservatism. Unless Cameron starts showing some backbone he'll be toast.

Chrias, why are you surprised? Cameron, Gove, etc see power as an end in itself, not a means to an end. Hence they have the political consistency of a weathervane.....a point also made by Alice Miles earlier today.

Looks like 'Dave' is going to enjoy one of the shortest political honeymoons on record.

Ever heard of the musical that never even got past the first act? The fire curtain came crashing down half-way through and the show went el foldo the following day.

Cameron without Mackintosh is a turkey waiting to lay an egg and a half.

Simon Heffer criticises Michael Gove. Rightly so. PC Gove attacked the Telegraph for daring to point out the role that immigration plays in pressurising the green belt.

Let's all be really left wing on every subject - that way we'll wrongfoot Labour. Pathetic.

I wonder if Gove was so pro-immigration in the days when he was an eager supporter and honoured guest speaker of the 'Far Right' political magazine Right Now?

http://www.right-now.org

Gove was then such an enthusiast for the magazine (guest interviewees have included J-M le Pen and Nick Griffin) that he even arranged for Editor Derek Turner to write a big feature article in the middle of The Times.

Perhaps Mr Gove would like to explain how he reconciles his new-found liberalism with his past 'far right' sympathies?

Michael McGowan,I can dismiss Camerons time at Carlton.It is completely and utterly irrelevant to what he is doing now.As Jeff Randall notes he was merely a 'boardroom lackey' within that organisation.Attempts to blame for the Ondigital fiasco will fail because he wasn't responsible,just as he wasn't responsible for 'black Wednesday'.I doubt that Labour will be stupid enough to make it much of an issue,we shall see.
Conservative supporters can seem strange to me,at the very time when we are ahead in the polls for the first time in God knows when and we are reviewing various policy positions but no conclusions have yet been made our leader of all of one month is being subjected to such vitriolic abuse.

"Like or not, we have got to get people who voted Labour for the last three times to vote Conservative. This can only be done from the centre."


So the only way to get people to switch from Labour is to have similar policies to Labour? Doesnt really make much sense. Surely if we are to convince voters who vote Labour, Lib Dem or dont vote at all to vote Conservative we must offer them a different vision of the UK. No one is complaining that Cameron has focused on issues such as the environment or global poverty. Its the fact that he is failing to make a true free market case on these issues. Make the case for free trade, not say how free trade should be made fair. It is long overdue that the Conservatives start talking about helping the poorest in society, but 'standing up to big business' and redistribution is no way to do it. Cameron is doing some things right, but he has a long way to go before winning over the rest of us.

It is almost exactly seven months since we lost the last General Election. We lost that election on a manifesto created by David Cameron, now surely he believed all that stuff he wrote? Now only seven months later he is saying he was all wrong. This must be the shortest political journey in history. Or did he really not believe any of it and just wrote what he thought Michael Howard would want? Either way it doesn't look good for David Cameron.

The Conservative Party was slaughtered in 1997 formally sound people took defeat badly, particularly those who lost their seats. The best example being Michael Portillo. They took defeat personally and asked themselves difficult questions, “why don’t they like me/us?” They came to the simple conclusion that the Conservative Party was “nasty” and that large chunks of what happened between 1979 and 1997 were just wrong. Other examples of this include John Bercow, former immigration secretary of the Monday Club now arch moderniser.

For the Conservative Party to regain power they thought we should make cosmetic changes such as ditching ties and packing the candidates list with as many minority candidates as possible by what ever means necessary. They then set to task on policy, section 28 wrong, cutting taxes wrong, tough stance on immigration wrong and so on. These policies should be replaced by more “voter friendly” policies such as commitment to the NHS, abolition of section 28 etc. Now it has taken them three leaders but finally the modernisers have got there way and we are now seeing the fruits of their efforts.

What really happened in 1997? Yes we lost, but why? Was it because we were seen as nasty and that the public really didn’t like us? I would suggest that the public have never liked the Tory Party, their attitude to us has been “you do the job for have the price of the other lot and we can rely on you to get the job done on time, but don’t take the p*ss” Based on this notion they happily voted us in four times in a row. Come 1997 we were well and truly taking the p*ss, Black Wednesday, brown envelopes, sex etc etc. Faced with a reformed Labour Party they opted for similar policies with a promise not to take the p*ss.

So the policy wasn’t wrong it was the fact that we picked some pretty poor people to front them and these pretty poor people got up to some pretty awful things when in power. Hence come 1997 the public give us a good kicking.

The scale of defeat suffered in 1997 could not be overturned in one election so come 2001 we lost. Again not down to policy, the task was just too great and if we are honest we did have a pretty poor leader. However by 2005 we had a better leader and the policies were still broadly similar, what happened? We gained 33 seats on May 5, three in Wales and one in Scotland! We are now the largest party in local government, with more councillors and running more councils than any other party, chairing the influential Local Government Association and we have more members than Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined, we are also the largest party in the European Parliament. Had Michael Howard been leader since 2001 the result could have been even better.

The conclusion. The policy was never wrong, we won. Thatcherism triumphed and in 1992 Socialism in this country died. We lost so badly in 1997 that it was going to take several elections to come back and a bl**dy good leader to do the job. We messed around on the leader front and therefore the comeback has been slower, but it has begun and in many seats in 2005 we came close to winning. The modernisers were wrong and will be proved wrong in 2009 when we loose again, but this time it will be the policy!

There is no substitute for a fully thought through political philosophy. Margaret Thatcher had one: improvements to public services can only come from a successful economy; a successful economy can only be created by reducing taxes, reducing the interference of the state and librating the forces of private enterprise. It was a clear and consistent policy, articulated with cogent reasoning, and you know she believed it in her heart and tried to put it into practice in her policies. It won her three elections and even those who disagreed with her respected her for the courage of her convictions. I voted for
David Cameron in the recent leadership election because I felt he genuinely believed in social and economic liberalism.
I felt he had the intelligence and persuasive abilities to regain the political initiative and start to set the agenda. I was heartened by his attack on Christian Aid's anti-capitalist propaganda. I was prepared to go along with his social liberalism on drugs policy and civil partnerships etc, which I do not share, because I felt that it was part of a consistent political stance. Have I misjudged him ? I think it is too soon to say. I am encouraged by the news that he reads Hayek and JS Mill. I think what we would all be glad of is a politician who can articulate persuasively a coherent and attractive vision, and who does not seem to be at the mercy of the latest media opinion or party faction.

To fix the problem we need to give Cameron the heave-ho and re-run leadership elections until we get Liam Fox.

Like many commentators here, I'm slightly concerned at the direction in which Cameron is taking the party. Reforms on social policy and the ditching of the "nasty" tag on issues such as immigration and gay rights was long overdue, and I can live with Heffer having a bit of a huff. When I voted for Cameron, it was with enthusiasm and not regret.

However, the criticisms seem much broader and much more cogent than that. The question is this: what is Cameron's vision for Britain? Contrary to popular myth, Blair did not win because he stole the Tories' clothes or their policies. He presented a compelling vision of Britain which combined social justice with economic prosperity, and saw a dynamic economy as the vehicle through which to achieve traditional Labour goals. He did not jettison Labour's objectives in 1997, but re-examined whether state ownership and union power were the best means to the end.

Cameron does not have a clear and compelling alternative. Insofar as there is any vision whatsoever, it appears to be largely indistinguishable from Blair's, both in means and ends. It is a great shame. He could - and should - have articulated a vision of Britain that was essentially an "enabling" one, giving families and communities the tools to help themselves. Sadly, on policy and objective alike, it seems he is keen to echo Blair. The entire strategy is based around the notion that Brown will be an old Leftie. Brown is more astute than that. Gambling on Brown becoming a 1970s socialist is not a strategy so much as a hope.

Like many commentators here, I'm slightly concerned at the direction in which Cameron is taking the party. Reforms on social policy and the ditching of the "nasty" tag on issues such as immigration and gay rights was long overdue, and I can live with Heffer having a bit of a huff. When I voted for Cameron, it was with enthusiasm and not regret.

However, the criticisms seem much broader and much more cogent than that. The question is this: what is Cameron's vision for Britain? Contrary to popular myth, Blair did not win because he stole the Tories' clothes or their policies. He presented a compelling vision of Britain which combined social justice with economic prosperity, and saw a dynamic economy as the vehicle through which to achieve traditional Labour goals. He did not jettison Labour's objectives in 1997, but re-examined whether state ownership and union power were the best means to the end.

Cameron does not have a clear and compelling alternative. Insofar as there is any vision whatsoever, it appears to be largely indistinguishable from Blair's, both in means and ends. It is a great shame. He could - and should - have articulated a vision of Britain that was essentially an "enabling" one, giving families and communities the tools to help themselves. Sadly, on policy and objective alike, it seems he is keen to echo Blair. The entire strategy is based around the notion that Brown will be an old Leftie. Brown is more astute than that. Gambling on Brown becoming a 1970s socialist is not a strategy so much as a hope.

Richard -
I'm inclined to agree with a lot of what you say above, but not all. Certainly there were a lot of poor, inept 'spokesmen' presenting Conservative policies in the 92 to 97 government, and a lot of the trouble was just down to that. I mean, if someone like Mellor, or Selwyn-Bummer, came knocking at the door of your house, offering to sort your garden out, you wouldn't give them five seconds. And, ironically enough, it was always the least impressive people who seemed also the most arrogant and oblivious to criticism.
But personalities and policies inevitably become intertwined (and are deliberately confused by the BBC and other hostile media), so I think DC has had to make a visibly clear break with certain perceived past policies, to complete the work that the passage of time has wrought on our prominent past personalities (Lord knows why, then, he has resuscitated Gummer - that must be the most bizarre appointment of the new century).
I, too, think the 'modernisers' are essentially wrong, but there are little grains of truth among the rubbish they have come out with, and DC evidently judges that the likeliest route back to power is to tack that way. It is rather like a military campaign. These early months are, I believe, essentially about winning over the media. If DC stands on a soapbox and clearly enunciates true conservative arguments, the media will, however unfairly, go on the attack, as they always do; if he tacks towards positions favoured in the media, and away from positions which are not favoured, then they will find it next to impossible to attack him, and he will become established in the centre of public life as 'a decent chap'. Having then established this secure base-camp, he will then, I should think, move on to winning over the Great British Public, in the wider world beyond the media. I appreciate that the fear is that he will by then be trapped, because of these earlier policy decisions, in useless and difficult policy terrain; but things may not be that bad. The world will by then have moved on a little bit, and unpredictable events will have intervened which may well alter the terms of public discourse, and to which DC may be able to react profitably, in getting across his message. Such transitory and unpredictable factors often make the difference between political success and failure, rather more than the possession of perfect policies at the outset.

"I am encouraged by the news that he reads Hayek and JS Mill."

Reading them doesn't mean Cameron understands or agreees with them!

I agree with JohnC on the need for clear, thought, through philosophy.

The problem with Thatchers approach was that the public perception was that we never got the improvements in public services - Mrs T never stood up and said "as a result of my policies I'm now going to spend more on the NHS" - her government did spend more but seemed ashamed to admit it. The rhetoric was that of Dracula, the talk of tax cuts rather than using the benefits of growth to improve education, to improve health, improve policing. We did all those things but message was always about controlling expenditure, capping profligate local authorities and cutting taxes.

And then under Major we got tax increases, more control of public expenditure. Can you blame to voters for saying "we've been promised better public services... when?" and voting for the party which said they would follow tory economic policy but deliver the improvements we'd been promising for 18 years?

What's DC said thats so awful? That we need to concentrate on improving the lot of the poor? that we need to concentrate on improving the NHS for everybody not just those (who like me) have private medical insurance? That the quality of life is important and we should care for our environment? That he believes in a lower tax economy but not in open ended tax cuts irrespective of social needs?

He's changed the tone of our discourse with our electorate to show that Concervatism is about improving the lot of everyone. I trust that when we have policies developed they will be developed from the conservative principles but their objectives must be seen to reach out to the disadvantaged, to those pushed into Labour's dependency culture as well as to the well off middle classes.

The article in The Scotsman shows the failure of decades of Labour control in Glasgow - lower life expectancy, high social damage. We need to show we can deal with those failures.

"I am encouraged by the news that he reads Hayek and JS Mill."

As part of my degree I had to read works by the likes of Marx, Lenin, Engels and Chomsky. Reading something is not the same as agreeing with it, as James Hellyer rightly points out.

"The modernisers were wrong and will be proved wrong in 2009 when we loose again, but this time it will be the policy!"

Such a positive attitude Richard. It's nice to see that everyone is onboard and willing after only a month.

Richard is right though. Policies were never the problem. It was image and branding. Hopefully David Cameron will manage to rebrand the party by superficially changing policies, rather than actually changing Conservative policies.

Just a few points. First, I don't know whether some of the forgetfulness is down to the aforementioned grim reaper preparing for collections, but are we not forgetting that Labour moved considerably to the right to get elected. The point of Cameron is that he is not moving even further to the right 'just to be different'. He is fighting off Labour in the centre, who will then lurk to the left, leaving us lots of room for policies like the 'Patients Passport' in years to come. Politics is about the long haul now, not quick fixes; look what has happened to us over the last few elections. This is what Cameron and the younger generation like myself see. We need room to breathe. Forming right-wing policies in the current climate will not get us elected whilst Labour has the centre ground. Cameron is assuming (wrongly it seems) that the so-called 'core vote' is intelligent enough to understand this process.

The problem, Matthew, is that we have been here before and look what that led to? The Butskellites' "great idea" was to position themselves one cigarette paper to the right of Labour and then fall back on good old-fashioned deference to get out the vote. They were always implying that they would do great things which surprise surprise never came to pass. Those other great scions of Eton and Oxford, Eden and MacMillan, plus Ted Heath, simply helped the Labour Party bed down the post-war consensus that social justice = collectivised mediocrity. At least the Butskellites could fall back on deference and the figurehead of Winston Churchill. He is well and truly dead and the deference has now, thankfully, gone. There is no longer a role for another left-leaning party which is anti-meritocratic, protects vested social interests and has only a lukewarm enthusiasm for liberal economics. If you want that cocktail, Labour and the Lib Dems already provide poverty of aspiration by the boatload.

To pick up a point made by Malcolm earlier, it is not my views on Cameron's tenure at Carlton which ultimately matter. It is what the public and Labour will make of them and it is not a very happy tale. Add to that the fact that his spin doctor role at Carlton was Cameron's ONLY position of responsibility outside the closed incestuous world of Tory politics at Westminster.

Fair point, however there is a difference. Labour will only be centrist whilst Blair is in power. I think they'll lurk back strongly to the left (or at least will appear to be doing so through Brown) once he goes, so you may not have to wait long.

I would like to congratulate both "Richard" and "Deckchair.." for their forthright posts; the images conjured in particular by Deckchair made me laugh out loud.

"his spin doctor role at Carlton was Cameron's ONLY position of responsibility outside the closed incestuous world of Tory politics at Westminster."

That, in a nutshell, is why I voted for Davis. Not that I'm suggesting we'd necessarily have been much better off ... and I'd rather we'd chosen Fox anyway!

"Labour will only be centrist whilst Blair is in power. I think they'll lurk back strongly to the left (or at least will appear to be doing so through Brown) once he goes."

No they won't. The political differences between Blair and Brown are actually rather small (remember that Brown is the co-architect of New Labour). The only real differences are that Brown sees less scope for subscontracting to the private sector.

And as for this Labour has moved to the right nonsense, giving up nationalising the means of production and distribution does not mean they have moved in other areas!

"Nice to see Simple Simon up to his usual tricks again. What made me laugh was the opening to his article along the lines of 'people are expecting me to rant about Cameron and co, but their antics are not worthy of any comment from an intellectual god like myself', which was followed by the rest of his article, which was, quelle surprise, a rant about Cameron and co. Classic."

I'm sorry, Daniel, but Heffer is just not that stupid (though it is convenient for you to pretend he is).

If you would like me to translate what he was saying...

Cameron expects the likes of Heffer to respond with bile at every pronouncement he makes, i.e. to take them at face value and scream at the abandonment of traditional conservative policies.

Instead, Heffer is looking at the bigger picture -- the tactic Cameron is pursuing -- of *wanting* the likes of Heffer to scream at each policy announcement, each vacuous Labour-lite statement.

In other words, he is *not* taking Cameron's pronouncements at face value as indications of where Cameron is going, but is responding to Cameron's overall tactical approach.

Do you get it?

I read somewhere that Norman Lamont, DC's former boss, doesn't think that DC's political direction is fully formed. That tallies with my impression of Cameron from one of the hustings. There was enough vagueness and lack of philosophical direction to raise the same doubt in my mind.

There has been a lot of robust but reasoned criticism of Cameron in this thread and I suspect there is far more to come.

As I've posted before, I don't think we should be surprised by DC's image-led positioning. That's what he promised and that's what the party went for.

We have no idea what he might do longer term, because at no stage has he given us much of a clue.

Personally, I've been impressed by the party political waves he's made- so far he's delivered a poll lead, melt-down for the LDs, and serious problems for Labour. Not bad for a month. So this is not the time for us members to start laying into him.

But articles by commentators like Stelzer, Randall and Heffer are v helpful in drip-drip-dripping on public consciousness. With "leadership-lite" parties, moving the centreground itself is the only way we're going to get change.

The Watchman: do you think most of the electorate and floating voters look in infinite detail at policies or just the superficial feedback and images they receive from the media?

New labour have shown the way. What they say bares little or no relationship to what they actually do. DC is (99% most likely theory) playing them at their own game.

His one key so-called 'right-wing' openly expressed policy element is a continuing commitment to euroscepticism. All other blue meat can wait in my opinion. If he sticks to that key aspect including the exit from the EPP, all is sweetness and light as far as I am concerned.

>>If he sticks to that key aspect including the exit from the EPP, all is sweetness and light as far as I am concerned.<<

Big 'if', eh?

I wouldn't put any money on it.

"I am encouraged by the news that he reads Hayek and JS Mill."

Personally I am disturbed by this.

While one could make a convincing case that the former of those is a Conservative (based on the fact that his anti-Conservatism was in fact anti-European-statist Conservatism), the latter is definitely a Liberal. The philosophy of Conservatism draws its influence from the likes of Burke, Disraeli and Salisbury. Even when they have agreed with Liberalism on some issues (such as opposition to an overmighty state), it has been from a different philosophical basis.

Speaking as an economic and social liberal in the Lib Dems I had assumed DC was interested in my vote?

I can see now though that he wants to be a social democrat, so what's the point? To start his leadership by attacking social conservative dinosaurs I can understand. To then move onto rejecting forever the agenda of geuine economic liberal modernisers like Nick Herbert is an exotic move.

Still thank-you DC, it looks as though the Orange bookers at least will be able to defend their Tory-LD marginals from the economic liberal right of whatever Blair babe clone Daveyboy imposes on the seat. Even a leftie Lib Dem like Evan Harris hasn't been quite so sad as reject school vouchers without considering whether they'd work for the poor and vulnerable or not.

Lib Dem Target, I don't think many people care about the orange book, the libdem is just a party that sounds and look nice. But labour and us conservatives know that the party is nasty underneath...extremely confused and contradicts its own policies when it suits them.

DC might not even be a liberal, but he's using all that shiney, lovely, touchy feely stuff just to get the liberal-tory swing voters.

"I'm sorry, Daniel, but Heffer is just not that stupid (though it is convenient for you to pretend he is)."

I'm sorry, John, but I never said that the Heffersaurus is stupid (though it is convenient for you to pretend I did).

I did call him Simple Simon, which was more a play on words than a comment on his intelligence, so if you were confused by this, then you can put your clearly overworked mind at ease.

"If you would like me to translate what he was saying..."

Please do, my heart literally sings with joy every time I am patronised by enlightened souls like yourself.

"Cameron expects the likes of Heffer to respond with bile at every pronouncement he makes, i.e. to take them at face value and scream at the abandonment of traditional conservative policies. Instead, Heffer is looking at the bigger picture -- the tactic Cameron is pursuing -- of *wanting* the likes of Heffer to scream at each policy announcement, each vacuous Labour-lite statement. In other words, he is *not* taking Cameron's pronouncements at face value as indications of where Cameron is going, but is responding to Cameron's overall tactical approach."

Perhaps you missed the Heffersaurus's derisory references to Cameron's "pronunciamiento in which, among other things, he talked of the need to 'stand up to big business'", "the new Labour-lite Conservative Party" and "wanting to maintain high levels of taxes, abuse capitalism, leave sclerotic public services unreformed and become more politically correct than Sir Ian Blair".

No, it's not exactly screaming with bilious venom, but the very fact that he felt it necessary to make these supposedly flippant remarks demonstrably indicates that he is aggravated by it, whilst the ostensible purpose of the article was to attempt to demonstrate that this isn't the case.

Perhaps you'd also like to ponder over this particularly pompous delight from the Heffersaurus's rant - "it's not really of an intellectual standard worthy of my wanting to engage in debate with it". To make such a condescending, pompous remark reflects just how much Cameron and chums have rattled the dinosaur's cage - otherwise, he would have just swatted it aside and risen above it.

"Do you get it?"

Yes. Do you?

"I'm sorry, John, but I never said that the Heffersaurus is stupid (though it is convenient for you to pretend I did)."

You *did* imply it.

"I did call him Simple Simon, which was more a play on words than a comment on his intelligence,"

It's a play on words that suggests he is stupid.

"No, it's not exactly screaming with bilious venom, but the very fact that he felt it necessary to make these supposedly flippant remarks demonstrably indicates that he is aggravated by it"

You're missing the point: Heffer is not getting into an argument about policy. He is not saying why its such a bad thing that Cameron has junked such and such a policy; he is explaining why Cameron's tactic of telling the "core vote" to get lost might not be such a smart idea (for his own sake as much as Heffer's).

Whether Heffer is actually peeved off by Cameron is neither here nor there. I suspect that he would be; but I dare say I doubt that he is particularly surprised by the direction Cameron has taken.

He realises what Cameron is: a political whore with no principles, who treats politics like a game. With such a person it is *useless* to debate policy or principles.

That was the point that Heffer was making and that you seem not to have understood.

"Perhaps you'd also like to ponder over this particularly pompous delight from the Heffersaurus's rant - "it's not really of an intellectual standard worthy of my wanting to engage in debate with it". "

I think the comment is more a point about Cameron's intellectual vacuity.

Besides which, it is not entirely without humour.

"To make such a condescending, pompous remark reflects just how much Cameron and chums have rattled the dinosaur's cage - otherwise, he would have just swatted it aside and risen above it."

Oh the usual slur that anyone with conservative views is a "dinosaur". Well, what exactly is "modern" about spivery and technocratic managerialism?

And how "modern" are Cameron's policy pronouncements? And what exactly is the virtue of being "modern" anyway?

"Yes. Do you?"

I don't think you did.

The point remains that you implied that "Simple Simon" (whom you now claim you were not calling stupid) was contradicting himself. He was not. I have explained why.

And as for my being "patronising", it is you who are being patronising to Heffer; or is the phrase "simple Simon" respectful in your view?

Hmm.. what can I say after reading
Daniel Vince Archer vs John Hustings.

DVA (2)
Hustings (0).

To be perfectly honest, I really dont care about the personal debate between them. Its pretty petty.

"Hmm.. what can I say after reading
Daniel Vince Archer vs John Hustings.

DVA (2)
Hustings (0)."

Err. Yeah. That sure put me in my place.

Hustings 2 Vince Archer 1

Blimey,DVA going into battle on behalf of Cameron.I thought I saw a pig flying over my office this afternoon!
Heffer was as usual predictable and in my humble opinion, dull.He has as you say Daniel also become rather pompous, not a good trait in someone who used to revel in being a humble Essex lad.Hopefully he'll grow out of it.

Cameron made a monkey out of all those poor fools who invested in OnDigital, now he's making a monkey out of us.
Bring on the bananas.

I seriously doubt that Cameron has read a line of Mill or Hayek since his PPE degree.

"You *did* imply it... It's a play on words that suggests he is stupid."

No I didn't and no it isn't. I made a reference to the name of a nursery rhyme.

"You're missing the point: Heffer is not getting into an argument about policy. He is not saying why its such a bad thing that Cameron has junked such and such a policy; he is explaining why Cameron's tactic of telling the "core vote" to get lost might not be such a smart idea (for his own sake as much as Heffer's)."

Um, I never said that the Heffersaurus was getting into an argument about policy.

"Whether Heffer is actually peeved off by Cameron is neither here nor there. I suspect that he would be; but I dare say I doubt that he is particularly surprised by the direction Cameron has taken."

If it's neither here nor there, the Heffersaurus shouldn't have mentioned it. To do so merely undermined his Laurenesque contentions that he 'ain't bovvered' by Cameron and co - the underlying premise of the original point I made, which you chose to respond to.

"He realises what Cameron is: a political whore with no principles, who treats politics like a game. With such a person it is *useless* to debate policy or principles... That was the point that Heffer was making and that you seem not to have understood."

I do understand this point. During the leadership contest, I was guest editor of a blog that opposed the Cameron candidature largely from that standpoint, which would have been a tad difficult if I did not understand that point.

"I think the comment is more a point about Cameron's intellectual vacuity... Besides which, it is not entirely without humour."

That's your opinion. In my opinion, and that of others (see Malcolm's comment), it was pompous.

"Oh the usual slur that anyone with conservative views is a "dinosaur". Well, what exactly is "modern" about spivery and technocratic managerialism?... And how "modern" are Cameron's policy pronouncements? And what exactly is the virtue of being "modern" anyway?"

Please don't misrepresent my views. I referred to Simon Heffer as a dinosaur, not 'anyone with conservative views'. I wouldn't choose to spend more time than I should visiting this blog and others if I considered anyone with conservative views to be a dinosaur.

"I don't think you did... The point remains that you implied that "Simple Simon" (whom you now claim you were not calling stupid) was contradicting himself. He was not. I have explained why."

I did get it. I did not call him Stupid Simon so to claim that I did not call him stupid is correct. He did contradict himself. I have explained why.

"And as for my being "patronising", it is you who are being patronising to Heffer; or is the phrase "simple Simon" respectful in your view?"

False dichotomy. Just because something isn't particularly respectful doesn't mean it's patronising. Now, as James Maskell has said, this is all getting a little petty, so I've cut the put-downs out of this response, which I intend to be the last thing I say on the matter, as I've no interest in conducting a long drawn-out argument over something so trivial to be honest.

Having read the above comments, I've come over all tired and I think I'll have an early night. Night, night.

"Um, I never said that the Heffersaurus was getting into an argument about policy."

No, you didn't. This is the point *Heffer* was making. When you originally said this:

"What made me laugh was the opening to his article along the lines of 'people are expecting me to rant about Cameron and co, but their antics are not worthy of any comment from an intellectual god like myself'"

you misrepresented what Heffer was trying to say. What Heffer *was* saying is that its useless to get into a debate over policy with a political whore like Cameron.

Instead, says Heffer, lets examine his tactic of trying to bait the likes of me, and see how profitable such a tactic looks.

Yes I quite agree that this argument has got very tiring, but that is largely oweing to your obtuseness.

Am I alone in finding Mr Vince-Archer's obsession with Simon Heffer rather curious?

Of course Simon Heffer doesn't like or respect David Cameron - he utterly despises him - but that, after all, is just the view of one journalist. Really nothing to get worked up about.

So could it just be that Mr Vince-Archer and his already dwindling band of Cameroons know in their hearts that Heffer could just be onto something?

In other words, they're running scared.

Oh dear...

"So could it just be that Mr Vince-Archer and his already dwindling band of Cameroons know in their hearts that Heffer could just be onto something?"

It's notable that most criticisms of Heffer tend to revolve around his *tone* rather than whether or not what he says is true or false.

Now there's a turn-up. Daniel in The Axis...

I don't think the Cameroons are dwindling. I think they've just got better things to do that listen to a bunch of malcontents.

Yes, purging the last vestiges of principle must be very time consuming.

Principles or pragmatism. The moral high-ground will be yours. The victory will be ours.

I didn't realise that you were Tony Blair.

What Cameron appears to be doing at the moment is getting rid of the barriers that have been putting people off the very idea of voting Conservative. People have not trusted us on concerns like the environment, on public services and world poverty. And since the ERM fiasco the economy.

The reason for this is not policy - we have had some very good policies in these areas during the past two elections. What it comes down to is that many people have accepted the Labour Party's constant claims that we can't be trusted with these issues. Claims that have sunk in over the past three decades because rather than fight back and show we do have decent policies in these areas we simply turned a blind eye.

Cameron is currently breaking down these barriers one by one, using his honeymoon period to prove to voters that we can be trusted on these issues and should be. And so far it's working.

Now is not the time to start banging on about the same old issues that have sentenced us to opposition for 12 years. Once Cameron has removed these barriers to voting Conservative then he obviously must start showing why voting Tory will give you a better Government than if you stuck with Labour.

But now is not the time and a little more patience wouldn't go amiss.

Once Cameron has removed these barriers to voting Conservative...

These 'barriers' presumably being Conservative principles, including not a few that 'Dave' was enthusiastically promoting 9 months ago

then he obviously must start showing why voting Tory will give you a better Government than if you stuck with Labour

Err...haven't we slightly got our priorities in the wrong order?

Judging by the rising opposition to Dave's 'barrier method' evident this morning in the former Cameron fanzine known as The Daily Telegraph, Cameron will still be muddling around on first base come the next General Election.

Mike: As I hoped was clear in my posting these barriers aren't what I would call Conservative principles. These barriers are mainly the result of Labour spin claiming we want to scrap free healthcare, we will implement drastic cuts in important public services, don't give a monkeys about poverty or environment.

All of these are not Conservative views but thanks to our party's failure to challenge Labour's spin, a large proportion of voters have bought into some of these claims and therefore feel unable to support us even when they agree with us on many other issues.

By undoing that spin, the party will look electable and trustworthy again. And then we will be in a stronger position to explain why they should back a Conservative government. There's not point banging on about why you're better if people aren't willing to listen because they've accepted a bunch of lies about you.

I'd just like to say to anybody labouring under the misapprehension (chiefly Mike Smith and John Hustings) that I am a Cameronite, that this is certainly not the case.

Just because I'm not a member of the Simon Heffer Fan Club, it does not automatically follow that I'm longing to become a fully-fledged member of the West London Modernisers' Association (branches in Soho and Notting Hill) - that's like saying that because I don't like being kicked in the groin, I like being kicked in the shins.

I am a Conservative, and as such, when the party is on the front foot, indicating that future policy is likely to head in a direction more in tune with my concerns and those of my contemporaries, and the opposition are in disarray, I do not feel it is entirely productive to seek to puncture the bubble of positivity surrounding the party at the moment by pursuing a deliberately negative antagonistic approach to the new leadership before it has had a chance to prove itself.

If the party takes a dive in the popularity stakes, or lurches in an unpalatable policy direction, or remains in a policy/principle vacuum in 18 months time, then the leadership should be called into question.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker