The Daily Telegraph may still be broadsheet-sized but it is in danger of following other newspapers down the low road to tabloid sensationalism. Today's Telegraph reports the following:
"David Davis, the shadow home secretary, issues a warning to David Cameron today that he will quit his shadow cabinet if the new Tory leader takes the Conservatives to the Left."
That is a terrible distortion of what David Davis actually said in an interview with The Spectator's Fraser Nelson. Mr Davis actually said that David Cameron's strategy "is not a swerve to the Left. I would not be in the shadow Cabinet, I would not be doing this, if it was." Read The Telegraph and you'd think David Davis was issuing a threat. Read Fraser Nelson's actual interview and you read David Davis affirming the Tory leader.
The interview portrays a figure who is combining loyalty to his principles with loyalty to David Cameron and that combination has won him an 80% net satisfaction rating in the ConservativeHome Members' Panel. Mr Davis is understood to believe that his job is to represent The Tory Right to Mr Cameron and Mr Cameron to The Tory Right. Despite nervousness amongst the Tory Right about tax, Mr Davis is relaxed:
"Everyone knows I’m a low-tax Tory, and I would not be in the shadow Cabinet if I didn’t think a Cameron government with George Osborne in the Treasury would not mean, in the medium to long term, a lower-tax society."
Fraser Nelson's interview reveals that David Davis is influencing the man who beat him to the Tory crown. We already knew that Mr Davis only stayed in post when David Cameron agreed to let him keep the tough, Howard-era line on cannabis. From the Nelson interview we now also know that he has reassured the Tory leader on opposing ID cards and ensured that 'Built To Last' talked about tackling poverty rather than inequality.
If Davis is deluded enough to think that he, 'represents the Tory Right to Mr Cameron and Mr Cameron to The Tory Right', I am a sausage sandwich.
For all that, the DT's reporting is spot on. Davis was trying, in his usual clumsy way, to issue a threat. That's what laying down that blue line, beyond which he would not serve in the shadow cabinet, was all about. It's odd that whoever wrote this post does not understand that.
Posted by: Still laughing | March 09, 2006 at 16:14
Can't agree with that laughing. When I saw the headline, I first thought, David isn't happy with the direction and is issuing threats. I read the article, and it was nothing like what the headline suggested. Davis seems to say that if it was a left wing cabinet, he wouldn't be in it and he thinks we'll reduce tax in the medium to long term which is what Cameron said. Poor journalism again in that the headline is designed to stir when there is nothing to stir about.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | March 09, 2006 at 16:25
are you a suasage sandwich?
Posted by: spagbob | March 09, 2006 at 16:29
I'm sure renowned Cameron fan Simon Heffer had nothing to do with this mischief-making. Oh no.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | March 09, 2006 at 16:32
Absolute rubbish Sandwich.How you can draw that inference is beyond me.A case of wishful thinking I suspect.
Posted by: malcolm | March 09, 2006 at 16:35
i agree andrew, the daily telegraph has certainly gone down the sensationalist path on this one. i was worried when i first saw it, but reading the article it is clear that he wasnt threatening cameron. in fact, i think david davis is a good example for the rest of us right-wingers to follow. loyalty to our leader even when we dont agree with everything he says, and at the same time loyalty to his principles.
Posted by: spagbob | March 09, 2006 at 16:35
David Davis is an intelligent man, he would never quit the shadow cabinet. He must have realised that he is a man that David Cameron probably respects.
The right-wing will only make themselves more unpopular by backstabbing cameron.
Posted by: Jaz | March 09, 2006 at 16:52
Do the Telegraph team have an agenda here or is this just a bit of lazy journalism?
Posted by: James Cleverly | March 09, 2006 at 16:55
The Telegraph seems to being trying to give oxygen to a "stop Cameron campaign". I read the article through twice in Speccie and it wasn't close to the interpretation the DT gave it.
DD came across as a solid member of the Shadow Cabinet, arguing his points, but with respect for DC and agreeing with the overall strategy.
Posted by: Ted | March 09, 2006 at 16:55
A bit of both I would say James. They obviously went into it with an idea of what they wanted to hear and twisted the interview to suit it.
Have we got a broadsheet newspaper that supports us anymore?
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | March 09, 2006 at 17:16
OT but relevant to DD.
On politicalbetting yesterday in discussion that somehow came round to gay Tory MPs it was noted that when Michael Brown was about to be outed by NOW (Lawmaker is Lawbreaker) David Davis drove to Brown's home late Saturday night to show support. A loyal friend.
Posted by: Ted | March 09, 2006 at 17:24
More worrying than any of this is why on earth is the Specy using Fraser Nelson to do anything other than open the mail?
Posted by: Lord Haw Haw | March 09, 2006 at 17:27
When I read the headline I thought something was up, it just doesn't seem the sort of thing DD needs to do and certainly he has no reason to be unhappy with his role or how the party is performing.
I am getting a bit fed up of a paper my politics teacher alsways called the Torygraph. They have a strange agenda that seems to involve wanting rid of Labour whilst also not wanting a tory administration except on terms that no mainstream party can get electoral support for in Brown's client state. I suspect the Heffersaurus is wielding too much influence.
Interesting that the Grauniad gives a straight down the line version of the story with no mention of 'threats'. The Telegraph is in danger of sounding too much like a grumpy old colonel whiling away his sunset years bemoaning the loss of the 1950's attitudes that served the Empire so well. I shall boycott it and get my news from the Tmes who have become quite keen on laying into GB (so Murdoch is clearly hedging his bets).
Posted by: kingbongo | March 09, 2006 at 19:25
Some of us think Fraser Nelson is an excellent journalist, Lord Haw Haw.
Posted by: Editor | March 09, 2006 at 20:07
Some of "us" don't, editor.
Posted by: john Skinner | March 10, 2006 at 00:58
I was also startled by the headline. I'm am very glad it didn't reflect what he actually said. The last thing we need is civil war.
Posted by: Serf | March 10, 2006 at 06:36
The theory that this was a Hefferesque attempt to damage Cameron doesn’t make any sense at all.
This was Telegraph spin that was (potentially) very damaging to Davis. Cameron’s authority, on the other hand, could not be undermined by something like this at this stage of the party’s ‘resurgence’.
One the Guardian readers above (“retired colonels”) is still convinced that the Telegraph is an anti-Cameron paper, presumably because he never reads it. Heffer, to be sure, is a conservative and therefore doesn’t care for DC, but against his doubt has to be weighed the pro-Cameron sentiment of Toby Helm, George Jones, Rachel Sylvester, Alice Thomson, Boris Johnson, Charles Moore, Ferdinand Mount and Sam Leith.
Posted by: Phil Jackson | March 10, 2006 at 07:58
Actually Phil I read the Telegraph every day, as I have done for the past 25 years
I am concerned about the editorial line, not the works of commentators - where I think a wide range of views is welcome; even if they are Simon Heffer's, who always comes across to me as more grumpy but less interesting than Peter Hitchens
The Telegraph should not be spending its time looking for or trying to create splits and divisions anywhere except in the ranks of this repulsive government.
Posted by: kingbongo | March 10, 2006 at 08:12
"The theory that this was a Hefferesque attempt to damage Cameron doesn’t make any sense at all.
This was Telegraph spin that was (potentially) very damaging to Davis. Cameron’s authority, on the other hand, could not be undermined by something like this at this stage of the party’s ‘resurgence’."
Hogwash - this was a blatant attempt at promoting the idea of dissent within the ranks.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | March 10, 2006 at 09:52
Hogwash - this was a blatant attempt at promoting the idea of dissent within the ranks.
Er….well, you’re half way there. It certainly promotes the idea of Davis disloyally issuing veiled threats against Cameron. But qui bono? And why should a Cameron supporting journalist misrepresent the Spectator article in this way?
Just a bit of sensationalism, I guess. Unhelpful though.
Posted by: Phil Jackson | March 10, 2006 at 10:41
Having mulled this over I think that some sub-editor looked at the following two headlines.
"Davis warning to Cameron not to abandon tax cuts"
or
"Davis supports Cameron"
And thought "Which one is more likely to get people reading the article?"
Lazy subbing IMHO.
Posted by: James Cleverly | March 10, 2006 at 12:00
What a shame - I had hoped that this was a genuine 'hard word' from Davis to Cameron to drop his mad 'No Tax cuts' stance.
Like Arsenal we are in danger of losing our soul by dropping solid ,sound ,home grown policies in favour of foreign ones with a bit more superficial glamour.
The only way to cut the State down to size is to cut its tax revenue - end of story.
Posted by: RodS | March 10, 2006 at 19:32