Up until now Labour have been divided on the best critique of David Cameron. If The Observer is to be believed party strategists appear to have decided to paint the new Tory leader as Bush-like. The newspaper claims to have seen a report drawn up for Labour's high-command...
"'The last Conservative to successfully seek election as a "different kind of Conservative" was, of course, George W Bush,' it says. Bush's rhetoric was 'modern Conservative' but 'the reality was... tax cuts for the wealthiest, rising unemployment and a weaker safety net for the most vulnerable'."
The Observer continues:
"The document takes aim at Cameron's establishment of commissions to review Tory policy, led by figures including former leader Iain Duncan Smith and 'a bunch of ex-Tory ministers'. Is that, the strategy booklet asks, 'his idea of a centrist future? It's as if Neil Kinnock had put George Galloway, Derek Hatton and Arthur Scargill in charge of the 1987 [Labour] policy review.'"
Is this the best that Labour can do? On tax, green issues and general disposition there are huge differences between Bush and Cameron. If anyone is going to be damaged by a closeness to Bush it is Blair himself.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel isnt even starting to describe how desperate this attempt to damage Cameron is. Labour will have gone cleanly through the barrel if they actually do this.
Posted by: James Maskell | February 05, 2006 at 12:43
Labour is happy to scrape the bottom of the barrel - dirty tricks department smearing individuals who embarrass ministers during election campaigns for example.
Cameron's tactics since his leadership election left their 100 day attack plan in dissarray. I think however that the Bush gambit will be difficult to launch while Tony is leading - Gordon might get away with it, distancing himself from Bush as the latter becomes a lame duck president.
Posted by: Ted | February 05, 2006 at 13:05
The logic is bizarre as by comparing Cameron to Bush, the connotation is that Bush isnt someone to get close to. But wait a sec, isnt Blair known for his close ties to Bush?
Posted by: James Maskell | February 05, 2006 at 13:18
Ha, makes no sense. What would Bush think if his best mate started telling his electorate not to vote for the other guy cuz "hes just like my mate George"... this ploy even looks incohearant written down.
Posted by: Graham Wild | February 05, 2006 at 16:12
I don't think being compared to George Bush is insulting. Then again though I never quite fell in with the "George Bush is evil" brigade.
Posted by: Richard | February 05, 2006 at 16:30
I dont think hes evil, but I was against the war...
The logic is seriously wierd. Anyone with an ounce of common sense in them would see right through this plan and see the basic flaw...its counter-productive to the extreme!
Posted by: James Maskell | February 05, 2006 at 17:16
It's" Demon Eyes " again - and didn't that work well....
Posted by: Ted | February 05, 2006 at 17:19
I seriously hope that Cameron doesnt end up, if elected, governing like Bush, in the sense of ridiculous spending increases (faster than under Clinton). This Labour tactic does look seriously flawed, however Brown, who has successfully completely distanced himself from the war and Bush, could be more convincing. We should be prepared, just incase.
Posted by: Rob Largan | February 05, 2006 at 17:30
Neo-con foreign policy, no intention to reduce government expenditure or move to a smaller state, son of a rich daddy, went a bit wild during university, poor record in his business career, only the loosest grasp of economics, likes to be seen riding a bike, and electorally good despite a lack of any obvious intellect.
Well at least one of them believes in school choice and tax cuts.
Posted by: Cutting taxes wins elections | February 05, 2006 at 18:16
"I seriously hope that Cameron doesnt end up, if elected, governing like Bush, in the sense of ridiculous spending increases (faster than under Clinton)."
Indeed. My biggest criticism of Bush is that he threw away the chance to completely abolish the US national debt. Instead, he has massively increased it.
Posted by: Richard | February 05, 2006 at 19:15
Rather pathetic isn't it? Whatever anyone thinks of Cameron ,noone can deny that he's a gifted speaker and is sharp in debate and in interviews.I don't think even Barbara Bush would make the same claim for her son!
Labour is still very unsure how to attack Cameron,I read an interview with Tessa Jowell who tried to imply Cameron was alright but it was the rest of the Tory party the electorate should be frightened of.
Jowells comments were as dishonest as the comparison with Bush and will therefore fail,it is only when there is some truth in a claim that the claim becomes effective.
Posted by: malcolm | February 05, 2006 at 19:32
Current tactics appear to be to paint Blair as divorced from his party - hence support for Education Bill etc. Labour appear to be repaying the favour.
The trick is, having opened up a gap in your opponent, then driving through it with something which voters will support.
Posted by: William Norton | February 05, 2006 at 19:36
"it is only when there is some truth in a claim that the claim becomes effective."
I wouldn't go that far.
Posted by: John Hustings | February 05, 2006 at 19:44
I think one of the best analogies occured during the 1997 election.A number of election advisors suggested to Major that he should run an advertisement claiming that Blair had made a kind of faustian pact with the Devil where he would say ANYTHING to get elected.I think this advertisement would have worked well as it was fairly obvious that it was true.Blair would say anything to get elected.Poor Major vetoed the ad as he was aware that the reference to the Devil would offend Blairs religous sensibilities.
So insted we got 'Demon Eyes' which was just rubbish,was not taken seriously by anyone and made the Tories seem foolish and trivial.
Hopefully the same will be true should Labour continue with this ludicrous assertion that Cameron equals Bush.
Posted by: malcolm | February 05, 2006 at 20:03
"Hopefully the same will be true should Labour continue with this ludicrous assertion that Cameron equals Bush."
The assertion isnt all that ludicrous, Cameron and Bush are remarkably similar, as 'cutting taxes wins elections'points out. Just dismissing this method of attack by Labour is incredibly foolhardy.
Posted by: Rob Largan | February 05, 2006 at 20:30
Considering Camerons talk of his concern for those in the third world I doubt he would be as trigger happy as Bucking Bronco Bush and would want to extend the boundaries of the third world...
Posted by: James Maskell | February 05, 2006 at 20:47
'Cameron and Bush are remarkably similar'-Rob Largan.Are you serious Rob? Apart from the wealthy background I see hardly any similarities at all.The comparison is entirely ludicrous.
Posted by: malcolm | February 05, 2006 at 20:57
"Considering Camerons talk of his concern for those in the third world I doubt he would be as trigger happy as Bucking Bronco Bush and would want to extend the boundaries of the third world..."
Remember that Bush *has* increased aid to the third world (not that I think that means much).
Posted by: John Hustings | February 05, 2006 at 21:49
"Are you serious Rob?"
Yes. They are similar, Cameron has a reputation as being a neo-con, both emphasise 'compassionate conservativism'. Cameron has accepted increased spending on public services, Bush has increased public spending by a massive extent. Bush has spent a great deal of time, attempting to make the Republicans appear more inclusive, just as Cameron is doing. There are undoubtedly big differences on the environment etc. But the two are not exactly polar opposites are they?
Posted by: Rob Largan | February 05, 2006 at 21:59
Australia: John Howard
USA: George W Bush
Canada: Stephen Harper
UK: David Cameron?
I can't say fairer than that!
Posted by: Oliver McCarthy | February 05, 2006 at 22:02
The contrast would be between how George Bush and David Cameron present themselves - specifically the similarities between how Governor Bush and Cameron campaign, and the implication that PM Cameron would betray that promise as President Bush has.
Posted by: James Hellyer | February 05, 2006 at 22:04
The main difference between them, as I see it, is that George Bush's basic appeal is that he is pitching over the heads of the liberal intelligentisa to ordinary working-class Americans. David Cameron, on the other hand, is pitching directly to the chattering classes, and is paying very little attention to the values of ordinary Britons.
Posted by: John Hustings | February 05, 2006 at 22:04
Interesting comments. However, as you often rightly remind us in "Countdown to Brown", Gordon is going to be the next labour leader. Far more easier for him to LOOK very different from George Bush, and subsequently paint David Cameron as an unpopular neocon, even the former did actually agree with the war in Iraq.
Posted by: anon | February 05, 2006 at 22:26
But who -- other than the most hardened lefties -- are feeling so aggrieved at the Iraq venture that it will decide their vote in 2009?
Posted by: John Hustings | February 05, 2006 at 22:33
'David Cameron...is paying very little attention to the values of ordinary Britons'-John Hustings.I suppose that's why we now are doing so very badly in the polls!
Posted by: malcolm | February 05, 2006 at 22:42
"But who -- other than the most hardened lefties -- are feeling so aggrieved at the Iraq venture that it will decide their vote in 2009?"
Bush will be gone by then anyway. I'd wager a considerable amount of money that David Cameron will be closer to Bush's successor than Gordon Brown. Depending on who Bush's successor is, that could actually work in our favour electorally.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | February 05, 2006 at 22:44
"'David Cameron...is paying very little attention to the values of ordinary Britons'-John Hustings.I suppose that's why we now are doing so very badly in the polls!"
I don't understand your point.
Posted by: John Hustings | February 05, 2006 at 22:48
So, Malcolm, in abandoning our tough immigration policy, you think David Cameron is appealing to ordinary Britons?
Posted by: John Hustings | February 05, 2006 at 22:51
A fine straw man if I may say so John.You have zero evidence of Cameron abandoning anything as regards immigration.Unless of course you are party to information not currently in the public domain.
Posted by: malcolm | February 05, 2006 at 23:01
"A fine straw man if I may say so John."
Do you know what a straw man is?
"You have zero evidence of Cameron abandoning anything as regards immigration.Unless of course you are party to information not currently in the public domain."
So Cameron has *not* abandoned Michael Howard's immigration policy??
Posted by: John Hustings | February 05, 2006 at 23:05
In answer to your question,I know exactly what a straw man is John, James Hellyer has educated me on that at least twice!
And on your second point no he hasn't.
Posted by: malcolm | February 05, 2006 at 23:16
"In answer to your question,I know exactly what a straw man is John, James Hellyer has educated me on that at least twice!"
I think I'm gonna have to get him to educate you a third time ;)
Accusing me of a straw man implies I misrepresented you. I didn't.
"And on your second point no he hasn't."
Believe that if you want to.
Posted by: John Hustings | February 05, 2006 at 23:21
Zero evidence? Are you sure?
I think the signs are there that this will be another policy that falls by the wayside, as have so many that were to be "reviewed".
Posted by: James Hellyer | February 05, 2006 at 23:24
Another area where Cameron and Bush are similar, immigration. Bush has been very pro-immigration, he supports the old Ellis Island saying 'The cowards dont come, the weak die on the way'.
Posted by: Rob Largan | February 05, 2006 at 23:44
I find it hard to believe that Malcolm thinks that Cameron *isn't* pitching to the Chattering Classes rather than ordinary Britons.
It would appear to be blindingly obvious to me.
Posted by: John Hustings | February 05, 2006 at 23:48
I've never had the 'honour' of meeting someone from these chattering classes. Who the hell are they, really?
Posted by: Rob Largan | February 05, 2006 at 23:59
"I've never had the 'honour' of meeting someone from these chattering classes."
I guess that means you don't live in Notting Hill.
Posted by: John Hustings | February 06, 2006 at 00:13
Or work for The Times.
Posted by: James Hellyer | February 06, 2006 at 00:17
Afraid not, live in sunny Manchester. Dont get too much chattering going on, though someone just asked whether I 'served up'. ;)
Posted by: Rob Largan | February 06, 2006 at 00:20
Leaving aside any reality (and let's face it, political spin rarely has much relation with that), Labour seem to have really lost the plot in terms of basic PR competence. The effect of such advertising in instantly recalling the Bush-Blair relationship will only hurt turnout of Labour's core vote, let alone the effect in the Labour/LibDem marginals.
Posted by: Andrew | February 06, 2006 at 01:05
Andrew- dont forget that come 2009 both Blair and Bush will be gone.
Posted by: Rob Largan | February 06, 2006 at 01:46
"Bush's rhetoric was 'modern Conservative' but 'the reality was... tax cuts for the wealthiest, rising unemployment and a weaker safety net for the most vulnerable'."
None of these points is strictly true. While it is true that there was a mild recession at the turn of the century, and then there was economic fallout from 9/11, neither was the result of Bush's policies. However, Bush's economic policies have, in fact, resulted in lowered unemployment (currently around 4.5%), and a vastly expanded safety net, and the tax cuts were across the board, and (among other factors) led quickly to economic recovery.
This foolish media campaign by Labour shouldn't be hard to shoot down, or even turn to Conservative advantage Cameron's team manage their p.r. with any competence.
Posted by: john | February 06, 2006 at 02:49
The main thrusts of this attack are flawed. Firstly in order for it to work it will need the Bush to be portrayed negatively, this will hurt both Blair and Brown by association. It is currently the Conservatives who have the frostier of the relationships with the Bush White House. Secondly they seem to forget that Bush has won, twice.
The other problem is that by promoting this line they are reinforcing the idea that they are obsessed, scared even of the Tories, this can only be good for us.
If the young blood within the Labour party have nothing better to do than sit around and think about us rather than the direction of their own party we are doing something right.
Posted by: James Cleverly | February 06, 2006 at 10:29
James H, both links you provided from the BBC suggest that the Conservative party is 'considering' making changes to our immigration policy.Even if the stories are wholly accurate and as they have never been picked up anywhere else that is doubtful.John Hustings assertion that Cameron was 'abandoning'our immigration policy was at very best immature.
John I do not claim you misrepresented me I do claim that you misrepresented David Cameron.
Posted by: malcolm | February 06, 2006 at 11:47
The immigration policy will change. It would look weak for Cameron to say he will consider changing the policy but not actually carry it out. I dont think the previous immigration policy would fit in with the rest of the policy portfolio being created under Cameron.
Posted by: James Maskell | February 06, 2006 at 12:16
And way back as far as the hustings David Cameron abandoned our commitment to withdraw from the UNHCR.
Posted by: James Hellyer | February 06, 2006 at 12:18
Sorry John,I meant to say premature!
Posted by: malcolm | February 06, 2006 at 12:54
As I say Malcolm, you can believe Cameron is retaining Howard's immigration policy if you want to, but you're the only one who thinks that.
Posted by: John Hustings | February 06, 2006 at 15:48
Another assertion with no evidence to back it up.
Posted by: malcolm | February 06, 2006 at 16:48