No more Mr Nice Guy

Bruce Anderson says it is "time to advance" from Mr Nice Guy and say some "hard things about the Government":

"The wish to ensure that the electorate would re-evaluate the Tory party explains Mr Cameron's reluctance to fall back on the comfort zone of traditional themes. Though many Tory supporters would have preferred to hear more about tax and crime, Mr Cameron insists that it is hard to overstate the voters' sales resistance to familiar political sales pitches."

Anderson believes this strategy has worked, but that it has limited usefulness:

"Inevitably, that tactic could only be successful in the short term. An opposition challenging for government cannot just raise new and interesting concerns. It has, eventually, to address the anxieties that most voters feel. There is nothing to prevent Mr Cameron from doing this, and when he does, he will prove to be good at it. But it is a prerequisite for further Tory advance."

If any recent Conservative leader had enough political capital to "get away" with going on traditional themes to attack the Government, it is Cameron. That this advice is coming from a strong supporter of his leadership adds to its weight.   

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Richard Bailey]

As everyone knows, phase one of the Cameron Operation was to broaden the base of people listening and watching. To say some pretty interesting and sometimes odd stuff that would really break the mould and bring more people into his electoral catchment area.

The next phase is to oppose and the phase after that is to propose (new Tory policy).

Only Cameron knew how long he wanted to give to each phase, but it is reasonable to suggest that timings always remained flexible.
Cameron knows that come October, New Labour will be facing internal strife. Precisely the moment to pile on the pressure of effective opposition on all fronts. And with no clear idea of how that strife will unfold and who will emerge to lead Labour into the next election, it is absolutely not the moment to start unfurling substantial policy proposals

So one wonders whether Bruce is providing his own commentary, or perhaps simply announcing the transition from phase one to phase two with the active encouragement of the Cameron team.

[william]

The next phase is to oppose and the phase after that is to propose

I hope someone can work out the difference between opposing and proposing. There is no clear division, maybe one of emphasis. For example, we heard a repeat of the idea of repealing of the Human Rights Act. That I presume is a proposal? Or is that just opposing?

[HF]

Good stuff from DC.

Now let loose the DD of war.....

Nice to read something positive from the Telegraph, a pity that its Leader comment is in the Heffer camp.

[arthur]

That's the same Bruce Anderson who said on national television 48 hrs before the biggest Labour landslide in history, 'Why is it, apart from John Major, I'm the only person in this country who thinks the Tories are going to win this election, not by much but they will win it,' Obviously a political genius, who wouldn't want him on the team.

[Eamonn]

On the Today programme this morning I thought that DC sounded rather unsure, particularly on foreign affairs. Thus, we must be tough on Islamic extremists in our midst (exactly how?), but Israel's respose was disproportionate (exactly how?). How is this different from what, for example, Ming Campbell is saying, or Tony Blair?

[Old Hack]

This still doesn't tackle the fundamental problem of a sustained narrative about why the nation must elect a Conservative government next time.

Moving beyond the base and avoiding charges of opportunism and showmanship requires both conviction and a sense of direction that needs spelling out and a vision. There is too much speculation and not enough information - which is why Labour attacks against Cameron have some traction.

There is still too much tokenism, short termism and reactivity rather than proactivity in the leadership.

Bottom line - are we simply saying we'll run the country better than New Labour because we are better technocrats? Sorry, not good enough.

[Nigel Wright]

Golden Rule no. 1: Like the clock that's right twice a day he may occasionally hit upon the truth by accident but nothing, absolutely nothing, Bruce Anderson says is ever worth reading.

To base an entire thread on his ramblings is to attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear...

[MH]

I thought Cameron was ill prepared andf ill equipped for his speech. He came across as rather desperate and cynically opportunistic. He always looks weak on foreign affairs, so a matter of this gravity required the utmost preparattion. Very weak, Dave, very weak.

[Ted]

Laughed when I finished Bruce Andeson's Article online - final sentence "Simon Heffer is away".
So thats how a pro-DC article made onto the printed page!

[Ted]

Laughed when I finished Bruce Andeson's Article online - final sentence "Simon Heffer is away".
So thats how a pro-DC article made onto the printed page!

[Tam Large]

Thank heaven David Blameron is at last talking tough and actually criticising the Government. We have been without an active Opposition for too long. Let him make mistakes; let him stir up controversy; let him make enemies: but for heavens sake let him have opinions at last, and turn those into non-luvvy policies.

These days if our Tory Leaders are attacked, they back off and go soft, apologise and shuffle their feet: in stark contrast, the Great Margerat Thatcher would respond by telling people even more strongly that SHE was right, and would bring them round to her way of thinking - and if that failed... she would do it anyway. That's called Leadership. Let'd have some from DC, from this modest start.