The best and worst of David Cameron

David Cameron has just been interviewed for ITV1's Sunday Edition programme.  There are two quotes of note; one good, one bad.

QUOTE 1 ON HUG-A-HOODIE: "If people attack me when I say that, when I say that some of these young people have had no relationships in their life, they've had no love in their life, they've had no-one caring for them, no-one teaching them the difference between right and wrong, if people criticise me for that I say look I'll go on saying that because everybody knows it's true."

The Tory leader never, of course, used the infamous 'hug-a-hoodie' expression - what he was trying to get at in his much misinterpreted speech was the lack of love and social support that puts young people on the conveyor belt to crime.  That speech was deeply humane.  David Cameron still believes in tough action against crime - as he made clear on Thursday - but he knows (as Mr Blair once appeared to understand) that you can't just be tough on criminals, you need to be tough on the things that drive people to be criminal, too.

QUOTE 2 ON STRATEGIC DIRECTION: "Yes, I get attacked by newspapers who'd like me to just bring out all the old policies, but I haven't wavered one inch from the strategy that I said was the right thing for our party and also the right thing for our country, because you've got to do the right thing in politics, you can't be blown off course by one commentator or another having a bit of a pop at you - that's part of life."

There are two faults evident here.  One is an unhelpful misrepresentation of his critics.  Few want David Cameron to "just bring out all the old policies" - they want him to balance the new with the familar.  Not to abandon his gentler, greener conservatism but to demonstrate to people that he's aware of the damage role that the EU plays in British life and that our borders are terribly insecure, for example.  'Not wavering one inch' isn't leadership - its stubborness.  Yes, we want a strong leader but we also want a leader who listens - particularly to friendly critics - like this website.

Comments

[A year of living dangerously]

Yawn.............

[Patsy Sergeant]

I don't think that David Cameron has any intention of saying what his real intentions are yet on programmes like the Sunday Edition, and why should he when the only reason he is being interviewed, is so that he can be 'skewered' on a pre-determined issue by someone like Rawnsley - which was very obvious today, or made to look ineffectual etc:.

The sheer arrogance AND bias of most of the political commentators on TV is astounding; it is not that they are all very pro labour except some - Andrew Marr for example, I think media commentators and journalists think that they have the right to make or break MP's, and some treat it as some sort of game to see who skewers some unfortunate first!

[John Coles]

A very good and accurate editorial which deserved better than the sheer silliness of the first post.
Patsy Sergeant: I think that much of the problem with political commentators is that none of their interviewees ever points out how rude/arrogant/facile they are being. Something between John Nott's mincing out of the studio and the present spineless acceptance of offensiveness is needed to redress the current appalling imbalance.

[Josh]

Well I would say that it is the job of interviewers to skewer politicians' policies, but of course we all know that the big players always skew from the Left, meaning the Tories get it harder than any other. One might even call it disproportionate.

I can't blame DC for running scared of them.

[TomTom]

Well Andrew Rawnsley is a bit toothless - he was always a sidekick to Vincent Hanna who would have skewered Cameron, Blair or Campbell without much visible effort............Robin day would have eviscerated this burbling.

Rawnsley did not even stop Cameron's vast ramble after been called a Tosser for getting the Tory Party into a £35 million hole as sidekick to Michael Howard..............and Rawnsley did not stick the knife in by asking about peerage auctions.

All in all political interviewing is tame, and even Paxman is more growl than bite

[matt wright]

I think DC is only trying to point out that there are those who would feel more comfortable saying the same old things the party has always said and in the same old way. He is right to try and present our positions differently. However the focus group as reported in the DT was very interesting, it generally supports DC stratgey but shows the dangers of spin. I believe that the strategy needs to continue but adopt a more practical stage now that maps out very celarly for the public what social responsibility will mean. We have to bring to life what we stand for and how the party would take the country froward positively. It is that new, positive feel to some of what DC says that seems to appeal the most to many voters,

Matt

[RodS]

John Coles has it absolutely right - interviewees should fight back. The conventional wisdom is that you just sit there and take it because you cannot win against the professional interviewer and you just come over as agressive. Perceptions have changed and in a live interview the audience respects a politician who will not be pushed around and criticises the reasonableness of the questions in a good natured way. Malcolm Rifkind is a good example.

[kingbongo]

The party doe NOT have a £35 million hole, black or otherwise it has £35 million of debt and a freehld building being sold for £30 miliion. That's a £5 million hole, which is bad enough; but as Conservatives if we are to critique the party we should attempt to get the facts right.

[Editor]

Thank you, John Coles (16:16) - much appreciated.

[ToMtom]

Kingbongo they are taking out a mortgage to buy the frehold to sell it so you might add the £15 million mortgage to the five you think is profit, and do you think Capital Gains Tax will be due ?

[James Maskell]

As Ive said on a number of occasions and as Editor points out, we arent asking for the old policies to be wheeled out. We want a better balance of policies. The balance is going too far I think in the way of modernisers and adjusting it to talk about (even in general tones if he doesnt want to go into detail) the core issues which traditional members care about. Cameron can still unite the Party.

Making a seriously constructive point here...please Cameron, talk more about "looked after children", fostering and adoption. Its been mentioned once in the year Cameron has been in charge and it wasnt by anyone senior. Please talk about it more often. It can form part of a discussion about dealing with poverty as looked after children stems from the problem of parents being unable to parent.

[TFA Tory]

£30 million for Smith Square is a joke. No wonder the Electoral Commission is investigating.

The Party is going is going bankrupt thanks to the Michael Howard, Lord Saatchi and Jonathan Marland - the fu*king tossers within!

[Editor]

That's unnecessary, TFA Tory. I won't warn you again.

[Tory Loyalist]

I see that Derek Conway is reported as having a go at Cameron and we all know that he doesn't bark until his master lets him off the lead.

Interviews with Cameron this w/e indicate that he is growing tired, nervous and perhaps a little disillusioned.

Methinks the big beasts are beginning to scent the first whiff of blood.

[Tory Loyalist]

I see that Derek Conway is reported as having a go at Cameron and we all know that he doesn't bark until his master lets him off the lead.

Interviews with Cameron this w/e indicate that he is growing tired, nervous and perhaps a little disillusioned.

Methinks the big beasts are beginning to scent the first whiff of blood.

[justin Hinchcliffe]

The way in which Lord Saachi has treated the Party over the last few years has been disgraceful. Firstly, as co-Party Chairman, he did some PR work for us - and charged us a bomb! Then he was responsible for renting us 25 Victoria for 'image' reasons whilst 32 Smith Square stood - and stands - empty with no financial returns. Thanks for nothing, Lord S.

[Tory Loyalist]

I venture to suggest that Lord Saatchi's fantastic record of service to our party is a good deal more distinguished than yours, Justin.

Much as I deplore the current, utterly phoney, "Hug a Hoodie" ethos I do not think that telling the unemployed to fish in the Thames for their own dinners was exactly a PR coup for the Tories. Possibly Lord Saatchi had to dig us out of that hole.

Are you related to Marie Antoinette by any chance?

[TFA Tory]

Editor, I apologise for the tone of my earlier post. I have been infuriated by two requests from the party for donations.

I will not donate because I do not want my money to pay off the 35m of debts that result from the financial mismanagement and waste.

A large proportion of the debt was built up under Michael Howard's leadership. Justin Hinchcliffe is right about Lord Saatchi. His disastrous decision to leave Smith Square has cost over £5m to date, probably a great deal more after the unnecessary move to Millbank next year is complete.

I also do not want to contribute to Steve Hilton's extortionate remuneration of £23,000 per month or ridiculous campaigns like the "Tosser".

I will donate again once I am convinced that my donations will be spent on high quality campaigns rather than paying for past mistakes and expensive CCHQ consultants.

Other activist friends share my opinion and have suspended donations too.

[matt wright]

Perhaps donate to specific projects by target seats if you are worried about donations,

Matt