Is David Cameron happy with Francis Maude?

This morning's Telegraph reports that "David Cameron has ordered a shake-up of Conservative headquarters amid rumours that he is unhappy with the performance of Francis Maude".  ConservativeHome received similar intelligence from a well-placed source at the end of last week.  Fuelling the alleged unhappiness is the suggestion that Mr Cameron was surprised at the failure of the A-list process to produce new standard-bearers for the party. 

A recent ConservativeHome survey found that Mr Maude had a net satisfaction rating of just 6% amongst the Tory membership.  Team Cameron is said to think that a more popular Party Chairman might find it easier to persuade local Tories of the virtues of A-list candidates.  "Friends of Mr Maude," told The Telegraph, that there was no rift "and emphasised that neither he, nor the party leader, had been directly involved in the priority list selection, which was carried out by a separate panel."

The Telegraph reports that the Bromley & Chislehurst Conservative Association may be excused from having to choose from the A-list amid concerns that any Tory candidate will face a fierce challenge from UKIP's Nigel Farage as well as the Liberal Democrats.  UKIP are attempting to rebrand to offer a more Thatcherite policy agenda.

Editor's note: "ConservativeHome hopes these rumours are untrue.  This website does have serious concerns about the A-list but it was the leader himself who instituted the process.  Mr Maude had to handle the very difficult Tory loans issue and did so with skill.  Francis Maude has done more than any other member of the shadow cabinet to build bridges with Tories on the net.  His interview with ToryRadio has gone online today.  Central Office is a notoriously difficult animal to master.  It would be risky to install a new Chairman just as the current Chairman was getting on top of the task.  David Cameron should realise that running a major political party is not just a matter of press releases. Bold leadership needs to be balanced with deliberation. Real change needs to be carefully considered and implemented with sensitivity. If the rumours are true, then Cameron is playing a risky game." 

Comments

[Edward]

Surely this is smoke and mirrors? It just allows DC to insulate himself and allow Maude to take an even more hard-core approach to the grass-roots without being seen to do so as a Cameroon outrider?

[christina speight]

In your editorial comment you go out of your way to defend Maude. Many of us for years have been concerned about his lack of enthusiasm for earlier leaders, his half-hearted endorsement of party strategy and his europhile tendencies. That is why we saw his appointment with a sinking feeling in the pit of our stomachs. He's a very loose cannon and Wet too.

I agree though that it may be premature to change the chairmanship now but he must learn to be a team plsyer.

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

This is nonsense, Francis Maude is the most dynamic party Chairman we have had for very many years.

If we are genuinely serious about become a credible party of government we must change dramatically people's perception of us as a whole.

Change is difficult and hard. It requires us all to look critically of ourselves and perhaps not enjoy what we see.

Go with it and stick by Maude.

[Robl]

The Telegraph also reports that Finchley and Golders Green are seeking a meeting with Bernard Jenkin to have the selection process delayed. Does anybody know why?

[Ted]

I agree with Henry.

I have become a Maude supporter over the last year - he has been more open & more willing to argue his points with the membership than previous Chairmen. He feels less of a Leadership appointee and more of a Party man.

He does have a history of disagreement with previous leaders - but if he thought they were going down the wrong path and wanted this Party to succeed then that's understandable.

Many of those criticising him do so while supporting those who want freedom to criticise Cameron.

[Robl]

Yep I agree that Maude has actually done a great job as party chairman. He knows what needs to be done and has been brave in saying it in the most brutal and realistic terms which is what the party needed to hear after a period of complete paralysis and myopia.

[James Maskell]

Henry...thats baloney. Its also a statement that suggests that power without principles is an end worth pursuing...it really isnt. Changing the party to gain power without ensuring that we are consistent with our so called principles isnt honest, its devious and wrong.

As for Maude...I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. He is in the wrong position in the Party and should really be out of a job. If he has reservations with Camerons approach, then God damn it stand up against him and say no. If he doesnt do it then he has no integrity. If he stands up to Cameron, he will have my support.

And about the A-List...the reason we dont like the A-List is not because of the Chairman, thats a separate issue, but because it is simply wrong and isnt justified.

[william]

Yes - but is he any use? Is the I-list a success?

The I-list is his creation. - it's all 'look at me' politics - 'I know better than you' politics. 'I'm a cut above you'. 'give me an easy life' stuff.

What we need is people who've fought their way up, persuaded others to back them at Constituency level, who can speak Yorkshire if it's Yorkshire - call a spade a spade. Not the cosy clubby stuff.

[Oberon Houston]

I've got to say, the last time I visited Victoria St., the place had the appearance of being a shambles. Open-plan offices all ahoo and stuff everywhere. Bit worrying.

Now wrt Francis, there is lots to be done, (a tidy-up and hoover would be a good start)but Intrigue is not one of them. DC needs end this.

[Voice from the South West]

I have to say Editor, if Francis Maude was sacked today then there would be wide spread rejoicing throughout the Conservative Party.

To be fair to Maude, he does appear, though I’m not 100% convinced, to have got a grip on CCHQ, however IMO the Party Chairman’s first role, even if he does nothing else, is to motivate the grassroots. This, with coming out with statements like “I don’t think we can win the next election,” is something which I believe Maude has completely failed to do, in fact most of the time he seems to enjoy going out of his way telling us all how out of touch we are with “modern” Britain. Thus perhaps it is rather unsurprising to find that Maude is one of, if not the, most disliked Chairman of recent times – right across the board from Lancashire to Devon, I have found but a handful of people willing to say something complimentary about him, the vast majority seem to have little or no respect for him at all.

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

I like the expression "he's a party man" there is no doubting that he wants to take the hard decisions and I think he should be given credit for that.

I'm not without criticism of the party and its strategy but I can see a genuinely determined man and want to support him.

Maude has shown a willingness to involve himself in discussion on forums like this.

I found his interview on ToryRadio compelling, he could have said much more and it was a great shame the interview lasted only 16 minutes.

[Sean Fear]

Francis Maude fulfills the same function as the hated King's Favourite in medieval Europe.

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

There is equally little doubt that the Chairman and CCHQ are getting to grips with party infrastructure. I understand that the party has recently recruited an excellent cohort of Trainee Agents.

[Hey Ho]

And you should see our tractor production figures this month ........

[christina speight]

So Maude says "brutal and realistic" things. Most of them sound totally defeatist to me.

James and William and especially the authentic "Voice from the S.West" have sussed the man. I can confirm the detestation the grassroots have for him in various constituencies that know - in the West Midlands, here in London, in Dorset and - I was going to say - the S.West but "VftSW" has said it better.

The country - and especially the Party - does not like the EU and Maude has backed it. To me and many others that is a betrayal of our country

[CCHQ insider]

Not to be unduly unkind, but I think some of the deference to Maude (above) is based on ignorance. People who have had to work with him know different.

Above all, he lacks energy. Although intellectually able to master details, he nonetheless usually chooses not do so. And while all politicians differ in skill set and what they bring to their jobs, he is unusually dependent upon the staff around him to ensure he performs even the basic functions of his.

This is nothing to do with CCHQ or David Cameron. He has adopted the same approach as minister, shadow minister and MP for Horsham.

When one considers we need to win over 130 seats to form a government and need to come back from nothing in so many of Britain's urban centres, it becomes pretty clear that the job of party chairman is for someone with an energy and work ethic equal to the task. There are plenty of potential candidates who would fit the bill.

[Another CCHQ Insider]

I really wonder if "CCHQ insider" has ever been inside 25 Victoria Street before.

Anyone who has studied the A-list will see Cameron's influence all over it. Notice how David Davis supporters who would have been shoo-ins under the diversity agenda, e.g. Iain Dale failed to make it.

If the rumours are true, and I suspect many people are making mountains out of molehills, it will be because Cameron has been shocked at how awful the A-List actually is and is looking for a scapegoat.

I must back up the claim that Maude is a master for detail. The man never forgets anything and he is very thorough. His laid back, calm style is mistaken for "lack of energy", but the last thing we want is some coked-up energizer bunny that's going to make a mess of things.

[Biodun]

Surely this is the same CCHQ-shakeup that Guido reported just 11 days ago.

The Daily Telegraph needs to catch up!
That's a very good editorial there, Ed. I'm glad you haven't been swayed by comments like Christina's. I notice that the accusations of "lack of enthusiasm for earlier leaders" and "half-hearted endorsement of party strategy" she levelled at Maude are more often applied to David Davis who's enduring popularity surely is due to his luck of being Shadow Home Secretary at a time when the Home Office is digging deeper and deeper holes for itself with very little help from us.

[bathugeo]

I've got a huge problem with this A list. IMHO discrimination is wrong and positive discrimination is still discrimination. Unlike Blair, I also don't believe that two wrongs make a right and that past sins can be justified by making more.

Even if none of the above was true, the pushing of women onto the list is bad in electoral terms as women themselves discriminate against women much more than men do and so more women on the list = fewer votes.

Finally, I've got an even bigger problem with Central Office. We keep changing our leader yet somehow the policy of Central Office never changes. I do hope the rumours of a shake up their are true as I think the party would be a lot healthier without the lot of them.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Henry - fear not, there is the second half of the interview coming next Monday. I'd like to thank the Chairman for taking 30 minutes out of his busy schedule to talk through Tory Radio to us activists. As Tim has said, Francis is one of the few MPs to embrace new technology - and that is something to be welcomed.

[A H Matlock]

I quite agree with the Editor. I see no justification for getting rid of Francis Maude just when he is getting on top of the job. Being Party Chairman is not a popularity contest and the revolving door that has existed in the position for the last several years has undoubtedly contributed to the disorder that currently exists in CCHQ. Even if DC is dissatisfied with the A-list, was that not more the brief of Bernard Jenkin and Shireen Ritchie than Francis Maude?

[Benjamin Cohen]

Tory chairman defends gay inclusive list

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>When one considers we need to win over 130 seats to form a government<<<<
To form a majority government the Conservative Party would need to gain 126 seats, 122 seats if the Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers were from Opposition parties; given that Sinn Fein don't take up their seats then effectively a gain of no more than 123 seats would be all that was needed for what was effectively a majority government.

A gain of 110 seats would probably be enough to form a minority government even if Labour and the Liberal Democrats were opposed.

A majority coalition government with the DUP and UUP could involve the Conservative Party gaining as few as 112 seats depending on how many seats the Unionist Parties ended up holding.

If the Liberal Democrats were neutral then the Conservative Party might be able to form a minority government with far fewer seats so long as they won more seats than Labour, although they would be reliant for every vote on forming broad coalitions on specific issues and would be frequently defeated probably in votes.

[Horsham Tory]

The self styled cchq insider has obviously not spent much time in Horsham, and perhaps therefore should not comment about us and our MP. Francis is a fully committed member of the team which produced the win in Crawley two weeks ago. and I doubt whether anyone who works with him in the constituency would recognise that rather spiteful pen picture. Why not come down and help next year and see for yourself?

[Ted]

Sorry O/T but "Peter Avis, an activist in the area, ....There would be a real problem if we had a gay person taking over the mantle of Eric Forth."

That's Iain Dale's friend Eric Forth I presume. So if Iain, David Davis campaign guy, had got on the A list and applied for his old friend's seat....

Thank God that this party has people like DC & Maude in it otherwise I'd give up hope and how dare Mr Avis use Mr Forth 's name in defence of his bigotry.

[Goldie]

I don't know Francis Maude, and he may well be an intelligent and effective manager of the party. But one thing is clear: he is absolutely dreadful on television. He comes across very dour and drab and negative. For this reason alone, I think Cameron should replace him with a friendly, telegenic character. Maybe Liam Fox?

[Jack Stone]

Don`t people ever learn. Rifts and internal arguments are one of the main reasons we are still in opposition.
If there are disagreements within the leadership then I think for the sake of the party people should not comment not frankly stir things by writing frankly stupied editorials.

[Biodun]

Ted you left out an important bit of that quote.

We need a traditional man like him that has good values. There would be a real problem if we had a gay person taking over the mantle of Eric Forth

He's already decided that no one in Bromley and Chislehurst wants a woman either!

[Ted]

Biodun
thought I'd covered that point already on the other thread!

What is a traditional man?

Eric with his colourful waistcoats & ties mixed with love of Elvis didn't strike me as one. Perhaps it's a version of the gritty, no nonsense northerners (who won't take any of these southern camp softies from the A list).

I prefer Francis and I think that if there any truth in these rumours Dave should take a big breath and sort it out. As far as A list goes let's wait on the July supplement.

There's a bit of me hoping Mr Rickitt gives a great interview, seduces the panel with his looks and touch of fame and wins out...

[CCHQ insider]

"The self styled cchq insider has obviously not spent much time in Horsham, and perhaps therefore should not comment about us and our MP"

Er, sorry, not so and, by the way, he has no interest in his constituency or his constituents. It is just the price he pays for hanging around in Westminster. He can't even handle the little stuff like signing prepared letters that go to constituents the same month that they are drafted.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>We need a traditional man like him that has good values.<<<<
Or someone with more traditional Conservative values - Priti Patel perhaps?

[malcolm]

Jack it is you who writes the stupied(sic) editorials.Either enter the debate or stay out but your 'let's support the leadership at any cost' without ever giving a cogent for doing so is frankly ,stupied(sic).
I have to admit I'm not sure about Francis Maude.His role in the fall of IDS was I thought apalling and his seemingly constant denigration of party activists in his public prouncements are irritating,CCO in my limited dealings with them also seem a bit of a shambles.And yet...and yet he has tried to enter the debate on Conhome,the failure of the Libdems to make gains in the local elections showed the strengh of his strategy so maybe on balance it would be good for DC to wait a while.
I also don't think Francis should be blamed for the A list.The blame for that lies a little higher methinks.

[Oberon Houston]

Possibly Malcolm, but I detect shenanigans going on here, and I have my doubts about whether "Conservativehome" should be getting involved in this type of debate.

The temptations for using it to manipulate opinion will get stonger as the popularity of this great site increases.

[Ted]

Oberon

there are sheningans (stirred by the Telegraph..I wonder if a certain columnist..no of course not)

But I am heartened by the defence of Francis in many posts, I think Sean Fear has it right in that part of his job description is to be the whipping boy.

Gosh, DC seems to be winning (good by elections, good poll ratings) what can we do to break up the party?

There are few around the front bench who acted well over IDS - and some who didn't over Hague or Howard either. But in December we turned over the page and past sins should be forgiven. I don't agree that it's Maude's job to do the rah rah bit today; he needs to remind us we are only approaching base camp and there's a mountain to climb and lots of challenges ahead.

[Sean Fear]

Well, my point about the King's Favourite was not just that he took the flak for unpopular (if necessary) policies, but he also got jettisoned by the King when he found it necessary to please his subjects (eg Empson and Dudley, or Wolsey). No medieval rebellion ever was aimed at the King, but rather at his "Evil Counsellors."

The A List has not turned out particularly well. But that can't be put solely at the door of Francis Maude.

[Richard]

"Jack it is you who writes the stupied(sic) editorials.Either enter the debate or stay out but your 'let's support the leadership at any cost' without ever giving a cogent for doing so is frankly ,stupied(sic)."

I've said it several times and I'll say it again - he's a UKIP supporting troll.

[buxtehude]

"His role in the fall of IDS was I thought apalling and his seemingly constant denigration of party activists in his public prouncements are irritating,CCO in my limited dealings with them also seem a bit of a shambles.And yet..."

I completely agree. His behaviour over the years has been terrible. He's a man who exists for the sake of plotting, a man of pure vanity. And yet... as Chairman, he can't plot against himself, he actually is trying to do his best, so he should probably stay.

[Biodun]

His behaviour over the years has been terrible. He's a man who exists for the sake of plotting, a man of pure vanity. And yet... as Chairman, he can't plot against himself,

I can bet that someone said the EXACT same thing about David Davis when IDS was leader. A H Matlock has got it right.. The job of Party Chairman is not a popularity contest!

[Matt Davis]

If it was ok for Francis Maude to criticise previous Leaders as he did then it must also be alright for those who disagree with him now, which doesn't necessarily include me, to criticise him in turn.

[A H Matlock]

No problem with criticism, Matt, let us simply ensure that it is constructive when coming from our own side when we are all supposed to be pulling on the same rope.

Lets leave the cattiness and rancour to our external opponents.

Bit of a joke on the same topic: "What is the difference between a caucus and a cactus?"

Answer: "At least a cactus has all the pricks are on the outside!" ;o)

[CCHQ insider]

"I have my doubts about whether "Conservativehome" should be getting involved in this type of debate."

That's right members should be seen and not heard. It's their job to obey, even if the party chairman is not up to the job.

It's 2006, not 1956, Oberon.

[William]

David Davis under IDS.............helloooooooooooo...where are you?.......has anyone seen ...............

Maude under Cameron......................I AM (the great) with the great I-List.

[Old Hack]

Francis Maude may be the most blog-friendly senior Tory, but blogging will continue whether or not he or the party likes it.

Conservative Home is currently the nexus of Conservative Blogging - shining a light into the nooks and crannies of the Conservative Party that CCHQ would rather were not expiosed. But if Conservative Home shut down today, another site would undoubtedly spring up.

Maude has realised that bloggers are making the party hierachy accountable in new and less contrallable ways. Conservative Home readers and bloggers owe him no favours - and neither should the editor.

[Nick Longworth]

I am often tempted to agree with Oberon's view that we should hold back our criticisms for the sake of appearing united. And yet, and yet... the beauty of what is happening with CHome and its growing influence is that it is we, as individuals, who get to sort the wheat from the chaff, not the party, not the papers and not the BBC. And isn't that what we are about as Conservatives? So, let's grit our teeth and take the cut and thrust, the insult and bruising of robust debate and trust ourselves and those who read this blog to form their own conclusions.
And to put it in perspective... where is NewLabourHome.com? Nowhere, because no-one sees it as having any future, so it's not worth arguing over.

[Mike Christie]

" don't know Francis Maude, and he may well be an intelligent and effective manager of the party. But one thing is clear: he is absolutely dreadful on television. He comes across very dour and drab and negative. For this reason alone, I think Cameron should replace him with a friendly, telegenic character. Maybe Liam Fox?"

Style over substance? You admit you have no idea how good he is at his job, but because he doesn't have the right image he should go? Words fail me!

[Michael McGowan]

I have a pretty clear idea of how good Maude is at his job. He has had a charisma bypass and his serial plotting and backstabbing over many years is only too well known. He is incredibly badly placed to command loyalty from anyone. Hearing him on Newsnight asserting that the Tories' soft loans were somehow on "commercial" terms simply reminded me that he is a good, old-fashioned, power-hungry, not-over-bright patrician Tory whose utter contempt for most of his listeners/constituents is glaring.

All that having been said, Sean Fear is right that he is being used by DC as a lightning conductor.

[Jack Stone]

Before we start talking about what Francis Maude did to IDS I think we should mention David Davis and his chums who have stuck the knife into every leader since Margaret Thatcher and Mr Davis is apparantly I know not why a hero of this site!
The Conservative Party have had serial backstabbing for years and if it starts doing it again it will simply stay where it is in opposition.

[Matt Davis]

"The Conservative Party have had serial backstabbing for years and if it starts doing it again it will simply stay where it is in opposition."

All political parties have backstabbing it is in the nature of the beast. Politicians are backstabbers by instinct, particularly if they think it will progress their own tawdry careers. The main difference between the Tories and other parties on this level is that when it is someone from the right of the party getting the knife then that is "justified" but when it's someone from the left then the cries for unity at all costs start up.If we won't win any elections by appearing disunited then please explain the Major victory in 1992 and Labour's victory in 2005.

[oh please]

Nobody cares whether Francis Maude stabbed the completely useless IDS in the back or not. What bothers people is that he is drowning in the job of party chairman.

It's very superficial to say Cameron is a moderniser and so therefore they should be on the same side. Cameron had never really worked with him before and so had no idea that it wouldn't work out.

[Alison Donnithorne-Tait]

"No interest in his constituency"??

Busy surgeries, local visits and issues etc plus loads of time spent with our local campaign teams..... I don't question his clear commitment and loyalty, and I'm his chairman.

[CCHQ insider]

"Busy surgeries, local visits and issues etc plus loads of time spent with our local campaign teams....."

It's not his turning up to events that have been entirely organized by others that is the problem. We know he can do that--although he will turn up late, of course.

The problem arises when he is responsible for something and takes ages to do it. You can't simply shift the burden of being party chairman onto everyone else. It's not like being the local MP when you show up and everyone else does the hard work.

[William]

If we won't win any elections by appearing disunited then please explain the Major victory in 1992 and Labour's victory in 2005.

The key word here is 'appearing' Matt. If you have Murdoch onside and a compliant BBC, you can appear to be anything you want.

As back-stabbers go, Maude is the master of the class, trained by Portillo. That's why Cameron made him Chairman - the only chance there is that Cameron's back won't be stabbed. As for competence, and skill, suitability, we could do better in many quarters - Fox of course.

But then how have Prescott and Brown survived in their jobs so long where competence and suitability are clearly issues? Blair knew who his most dangerous back-stabbers were and put them into positions. As they say, keep your enemies close... get them in the tent pissing out and so on. Shame it's always such piss poor piss, that's all.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>If we won't win any elections by appearing disunited then please explain the Major victory in 1992 and Labour's victory in 2005.<<<<
In 1992 dissidents on all sides were mostly quiet, there was a big increase in turnout and with the Liberal Democrats still recovering from the merger fiasco Labour were able to get a similar proportion of those eligible to vote as in 1979 and a similar number of seats.

In 2005 Labour's vote collapsed to it's 2nd lowest levels since 1931, they won because Michael Howard tore up most of the policy decisions that IDS had made and went for a tabloid type campaign with slogans and sacked Howard Flight for stating the obvious and attempted to exploit opposition to the War in Iraq which IDS had rightly supported and Michael Howard had claimed to support; it came over as just being an attempt to find scapegoats for everything and so in terms of support the main beneficiary were the Liberal Democrats.