Cam and Sam double act "has rescued the Tories' financial fortunes"

An article in this week's Spectator (not yet online) suggests that the Tories will enjoy a major financial advantage at the next General Election.  Spectator Political Editor Fraser Nelson expects Tory debts to be "an eminently manageable £5 million" once the old Smith Square premises have been sold - "against some £23 million for Labour."  Here are some key quotes from Fraser's piece:

• "In a normal non-election financial year some £15 million is routinely raised by the party. Yet last year the figure was no less than £21 million."
• "There is a new breed of millionaires who will pay astonishing sums to see, hear and touch the hem of the golden couple they believe will soon be in No. 10 Downing Street. With apparently effortless charm, and more or less overnight, the Dave and Sam double act has rescued the Tories’ financial fortunes."
• "Everyone involved in Tory fundraising offers the same explanation for the new bonanza. ‘It’s entirely down to David. No modern Tory leader has been so deft with the donors,’ said one fundraiser. ‘He remembers their names, their wives’ names, their business problems, everything.’"
• "‘If we let Steve [Hilton] commission all the focus groups and polling he wants, we’d be as broke as Labour,’ says one party official. ‘Luckily, David has realised what was happening and sorted things out.’  Here is a rare example of a harness being fitted to Mr Hilton, and a sign of the clout exercised by Ian McIsaac, the party’s little-known finance director, who vetoed his spending."
• "Opinion polls show that 59 per cent of voters want an election within six months of Mr Blair’s departure. The Chancellor may want to capitalise on a honeymoon period. But elections cost £20 million to fight, and only one party in Westminster can raise this type of money. There will be no snap election because Labour cannot afford one."
• "Unless Mr Brown manages to find new donors, he faces an electoral nightmare: going to the polls with a campaign that is explicitly dependent upon the munificence of the trade unions, who today account for £3 of every £4 Labour raises. This prospect makes Conservatives salivate. ‘Gordon Brown leading a union-financed election campaign,’ says one shadow Cabinet member. ‘Very Old Labour.’"

Comments

[Ian]

The way to solve the (self-inflicted) "problems" suffered by the parties, and to prevent the planned misuse of public funds for these purposes, would be to restrict election expenditure very severely indeed.

Do we really need expensive billboards and TV advertising to tell us who to vote for?

[Valedictoryan]

"Do we really need expensive billboards and TV advertising to tell us who to vote for?"

Yes. Elections are fought on many fronts, and the ability to raise support and money is one of them. It's one of the reasons I oppose state funding.

[a conservative]

"Cam and Sam" are not exactly without a rather big incentive to "remember their names, their wives’ names, their business problems, everything," are they?

I have a sinking feeling there is rather less in a Tory election win for everyone else.

[sjm]

Well, I'm delighted to have a Leader who mixes with the movers and shakers, and who I believe is a lot more savvy than people realise.

I don't think he has got everything right, and I don't necessarily agree with everything he does, but he is sufficiently on the right track and he is growing into the job, so he will continue to get my support.

[matt wright]

Sounds like a winner to me and that is what we want. The other parties are struggling more ecah day,

Matt

[Tam Large]

Well grovelled Fraser - I guess you want a place on Dave's A-List...

We need a Leader who IS a mover and shaker, not just good with them at cocktail parties.

[Alexander Drake]

Ian, for what it's worth I couldn't believe how little money is spent in the UK on election campaigns!

British PPBs are lame and dull. You think people don't engage in UK elections? It could be because they don't get any 'exciting' messages on TV during a campaign. I reckon a deluge of sharp 30 second 'attack' ads in prime time might do the British polity absolute wonders, frankly.

In any case, a national campaign in a country of 60 million people is going to inevitably mean big expenses. What's the problem?

[Alexander Drake]

Tam, I'm really sorry you feel the way you do about the Conservative Party and David Cameron's leadership, to the extent that you have let your membership lapse. And I hope that the Party regains your trust.

But other than articulating what have become the 'normal' gripes about policy (tax, immigration, crime, EU/EPP promise, etc etc) and Cameron's more contemporary 'feel' to his leadership than other recent Conservative leaders, what would you like to see him do differently that would make him a 'mover and shaker' in your eyes?

[Mark McCartney]

Well I suppose this "new breed of millionaire" now includes myself. Millionaires are a dime a dozen these days due to rampant property price inflation.

If they're that new they will have become millionaires under Blair, so may possibly be seen as biting the hand that inflates them. Whatever, they will not be donating to Cameron without expecting something in return. With Blair's present problems in view, isn't it time we broke away from all that seedy nonsense?

I can't reply for Tam but what I fundamentally object to is that the party is no longer even attempting to give an ideological lead to the nation, as it did so decisively under Thatcher.

We are now simply following the meretricious fashions set by Blair and, I suppose, arguing that Blair has run out of steam and Cameron can do the same better. Cameron himself, needless to say, seems to be fully signed up to the Blairite Cool Britannia bullsh*t.

The truth is that this is an ageing and embittered nation which demands a clean break from Blarite sleaze. Increasingly Cameron appears to be offering nothing more than Blairism with a fresh face, as confirmed by today's anti-Cameron article in the Telegraph by renowned economic journalist Tim Congdon.

[Andrew Young]

"Do we really need expensive billboards and TV advertising to tell us who to vote for?"

TV Advertising???? Not those useless PPBs surely?

Allow real political TV advertising for all parties and single issue groups. Why do we still insist on restricting our use of the most popular media?

Stop fretting about US style attack ads (unlikely here due to our different interpretation of the role of free speech) and let's start campaigning where people can see us...

[Alex R]

Is this the right strategy. We know that the government is going to introduce new campaign finance laws. Part of this will almost certainly see debts paid off. Surely it would have been more more prudent to have retained our debt?

[Serf]

So the strategy of forcing Gordon Brown to put off the election moves into stage two. His chances of ever winning an election get smaller by the day.

[Scotty]

"I can't reply for Tam but what I fundamentally object to is that the party is no longer even attempting to give an ideological lead to the nation, as it did so decisively under Thatcher."
I actually totally disagree with that comment and I am fed up with people who seem to be looking into some crystal ball and then comparing 10 years of Thatcher or Blair premiership to one year of a Cameron leadership!
IIRC Mrs Thatcher was not very specific herself before she became PM, and in fact faced plenty of opposition and angst from the tory old guard of her day.
David Cameron has became leader in a different political climate from both the two examples you give and seems to be setting his own agenda rather than following Blair's. In fact he seems almost ignore Blair and is preparing to face Gordon Brown a very different type of politician.
He will be judged initially by his electoral success against Labour and if successful then by previous prime minister's records.
But at the moment all we have are the polls which under his leadership have seen the conservative party perform consistently better than previous leaders since 97'.

[William Norton]

I haven't the faintest idea whether Brown wants an early election, or whether this article is correct about repayment of Tory debt. But it is correct that the financial health of the Tory Party is better/less worse than that of Labour. Cameron is paying less to borrow, and CCHQ doesn't have the same running costs as the Blairsheviks. So the Tories gain most from a long war.

Unless Labour can open up a significant new line of income (care for a peerage, Sir Hayden?) it looks as if they'll have to start shedding staff, which would make it difficult for them to fight an Election in the way that have recently and undermines their advantage over the Conservatives (bluntly, across the country as a whole man-for-man their people are better at running election campaigns than our people).

Rather than being an argument against a snap election, Labour's financial black hole could actually be an argument for one: put in a new leader; make an immediate plea for cash on the basis of naked Old Labour self interest; fight the election, cross your fingers that enough of your people get back; then sack the staff and mothball HQ for a few years; and gamble the Tories descend into civil war again if Cameron doesn't win.

Given the choice between being unable to afford an election campaign and being unable to actually fight one, I'd go for the former: you're going to face financial hell any way, so better do so in yr 1 of a new parliamen than yr 4 of an old one. But then I'm not Gordon Brown, and it strikes me that the only gambles he takes are with taxpayers' money and not his own future. Reid might be up for it, though.

[Mark McCartney]

I think I can best reply to Scotty at 09:04 by quoting the very wise words of the distinguished economic commentator Professor Tim Congdon, published in today's Telegraph.

Mr Cameron should be taken at his word. When he says he is in favour of "national school-leaver programmes", "social action zones" and suchlike, and when he says that the Tories should become "the champions of social action", he really does mean what he says. Whether his words have any genuine meaning is another topic, but of his sincerity in uttering them there should be no doubt.

On the main issues of the day, all the big parties are now close together. Unless the Tories drop Mr Cameron with all his misguided baggage (a badly rationalised environmentalism, Third World do-goodism, holier-than-thou "social inclusiveness" and the rest), I cannot vote for it. I believe today — as I did in the 1980s — in a small state, low taxes and free trade.

I agree with Professor Congdon, but I disagree that it is necessary to leave the Conservative Party and join UKIP, although I can understand his frustration.

Instead I want to see Tories who believe in freedom and integrity fighting back and taking ownership of our party.

It will then be for Mr Cameron to decide whether he is with us or against us.

[Michael McGowan]

"He remembers their names, their wives' names, their business problems, everything". Great, no doubt Blair does too.....but is that really a reason to write a cheque for £1 million, unless of course serious kickbacks have been offered in return?

[Torygirl]

I smell sleaze coming on. Nobody gives £1 million without something in return. As for Party Political broadcasts. Just a break to put the kettle on.

Governments lose elections. Oppositions do not win them, and the present Government appears to be holding its own despite Blair being the most hated PM in living memory. If the Tories are to win the next election, at this low point in the Government's term in office, they should be at least 12+points ahead.

[Valedictoryan]

Mark McCartney, when David Cameron said he wanted to set up Social Actions Zones, he described them as "areas where the voluntary sector can benefit from a lighter regulatory regime". It seems to me that "a lighter regulatory regime" is heading precisely towards the "small state" that you, Prof Congdom and most of the rest of us want.

I can that the left-wing lilt of "Social Action Zone" might trigger a knee-jerk reaction in some Conservatives but, in your own words, what don't you like about them?

[Mark Fulford]

If the Tories are to win the next election, at this low point in the Government's term in office, they should be at least 12+points ahead. -- Torygirl

Further evidence for Fulford's Theory of Anonymity: The more Tory by name, the less Tory by nature.

[Scotty]

"Instead I want to see Tories who believe in freedom and integrity fighting back and taking ownership of our party.

It will then be for Mr Cameron to decide whether he is with us or against us."
?????
Excuse me, you seem to think that the party can be and should be OWNED by one group of people? But not necessarily the majority within the party it seems, just a group of liked minded souls who think that they have all the correct answers.
Priceless!

[Ian]

The problem with David Cameron's supposedly "inclusive" message is that it is actually extremely exclusive and subjective.

Exclusive, because the main reason for supporting him generally voiced by contributors here is "The Conservatives will win under his leadership". This may or may not be true, but as a universal principle it is utterly abysmal.

There is also also the problem that this "principle" would seem to legitimise disloyalty should DC appear at some future time unlikely to win the next General Election.

Subjective because the underlying secondary reason appears to be "Cameron will run the country better than Blair/Brown".

Maybe he will. Certainly we would like to think that he will. But it is of course possible that he will fail.

Since both those pro and con Cameron are agreed that he has placed himself on roughly the same ground as Blair, there would appear to be no room for further principles distancing the two leaders. Hence all the talk about Bluelabour, Blameron etc.

You would never have heard that about Margaret Thatcher.

[Valedictoryan]

the main reason for supporting him generally voiced by contributors here is "The Conservatives will win under his leadership".

Would you care to provide some examples of that "quote"?

Since both those pro and con Cameron are agreed that he has placed himself on roughly the same ground as Blair

Have they? Again, an example of such an agreement would be welcome.

[Ian]

Well Valedictoryan, I really don't know where to start with you. You seem to be trying to be difficult for the sake of it.

Again and again we come back to the same argument "he shouldn't be criticised because we're ahead in the polls". I'm not going to trawl back for umpteen examples. Someone said it only this morning.

Now if you don't interpret that as "The Conservatives will win under DC's leadership" we're obviously not talking the same language. One regular poster even calls himself "changetowin" and I don't imagine he means change the party leader to win, do you?

As for meeting Blair on the so-called centre ground (or as DC would put it "being the Heir to Blair") once again the CH archives will be peppered with references making the dubious claim that this is the only place where elections are won.

Obviously those hostile to Cameron may call the "centre ground" something else but it amounts to the same thing.

Time, methinks, for you to turn over and go back to sleep.

[Richard Carey]

Firstly, it's obviously a good sign that our fund-raising capability is improving. It's a sign of political and electoral health returning to the Party. I've been working my way through series 6 of The West Wing on DVD recently (Christmas present), and one line springs to mind from it: "As much as the press cares about polls and horse-race, donors care more". It's a positive sign in the political horse race for us, surely!

I hope that this also rubs off on local associations' fundraising efforts - if it does, I can think of plenty of productive ways of spending it in pre-campaign for this year's local government polls.

Surely it would have been more more prudent to have retained our debt?
Do you think this would send a message coherent with www.sort-it.co.uk?

Again and again we come back to the same argument "he shouldn't be criticised because we're ahead in the polls".

I think constructive criticism, pointing out where we can be doing things differently or where we need to get better, should always be welcome provided it is done in a forward-looking, (small-p!) progressive and polite way. I seem to spend alot of my time in politics trying to improve our organisation on the ground and find ways of doing things better tan we do at present!

Nevertheless, I tend to take it as a given that being ahead in the polls is implicitly a good thing in politics...

Instead I want to see Tories who believe in freedom and integrity fighting back and taking ownership of our party.

Mark M - See my point above about constructive criticism! You're not going to get your (perhaps honourably meant) point of view accepted by raising it in such a militant way, and probably do it a disservice.

In my less constructive and charitable moments, of course, comments like that just make me think "Just try it, punk!"

[Valedictoryan]

Well Valedictoryan, I really don't know where to start with you. You seem to be trying to be difficult for the sake of it.

No. I agree with much of what David Cameron says purely and simply because I think it's right. Without substance you're attempting to belittle support for David Cameron as unprincipled. I note that you haven't actually mananged to find a single quote to support what, judging from your comments, is widespread.

Our consistent lead in the polls is used as evidence that David Cameron is, by and large, on the right track. As is his approval rating (which is broadly in line with the leadership result). As with your other invented quotes, I don't recognise from anywhere: "he shouldn't be criticised because we're ahead in the polls".

[Scotty]

"Since both those pro and con Cameron are agreed that he has placed himself on roughly the same ground as Blair, there would appear to be no room for further principles distancing the two leaders. Hence all the talk about Bluelabour, Blameron etc.

You would never have heard that about Margaret Thatcher."

I am really having trouble trying to understand the validity of your point, other than a chance to be insulting to David Cameron about what YOU perceive to be his lack of principles.
Just remind me again why we elect a leader? Is it to win elections or is it to make us feel better about our principles when we lose, because we can't seem to understand that a party with a membership of 200,000 does need a few more million voters to agree with them?
You describe Cameron as too similar to Blair in a critical way and then point out that Mrs Thatcher would never have been classed in the same way.
1. I remember way back when Blair first rose to prominence as leader of the Labour party, it was never hidden that he admired Mrs Thatcher and copied her much more faithfully than many seem to remember now.
2.Mrs Thatcher and Blair share an overriding similarity, they have both won 3 GE by appealing to the voters in the centre ground.
The mythical centre ground is just the place where most voters happen to be on the political compass at any given time.
The successful political leader judges what the electorate wants and delivers a manifesto appealing to those voters and their concerns.
Would Mrs Thatcher have won an election today on her 1979 manifesto?
Would she even have been seen as an appealing choice of leader?
I think the answer is no, but she was the right leader at the right time in 1979 and thank god she was there.
Now back in 97' Blair was seen as the right leader for the job by many voter's and we were seen as toxic, hence the Labour landslide.
You can't admire Mrs Thatcher's achievements without accepting Blair's.

[Ian]

I think Scotty's point very neatly answers Valedictoryan's curious exercise in hair-splitting.

"Just remind me again why we elect a leader? Is it to win elections or is it to make us feel better about our principles when we lose" certainly appears to me to imply"The Conservatives will win under his leadership".

And "The mythical centre ground is just the place where most voters happen to be on the political compass at any given time. The successful political leader judges what the electorate wants and delivers a manifesto appealing to those voters and their concerns." not only echoes but goes considerably beyond "Since both those pro and con Cameron are agreed that he has placed himself on roughly the same ground as Blair..., indeed it seems to imply that the leader should have no principles of his own whatsoever.

So, with the help of Scotty, game set and match to me, I think.

[Valedictoryan]

Ian, yes Conservatives will win under David Cameron's leadership. That doesn't mean that support for Cameron is unprincipled - which is what you originally implied.

Yes, David Cameron's views do tend to be in the centre ground and yes, the successful leader judges what the electorate wants (as if we should have a leader that doesn't!?), but you - and the press - seem very happy to fudge the difference in how the solutions would be delivered. Tony Blair's instinctive response to problems is that the state must provide the anser. David Cameron's instinctive response is a lighter government.

[Scotty]

"indeed it seems to imply that the leader should have no principles of his own whatsoever."
Ian, you were implying that any leader who tries to appeal to the majority of voters has no principles, where as I call it democracy!

[Michael McGowan]

Scotty, a leader who simply panders to the incoherent prejudices of the electorate is an opportunist. Nothing particularly worthy about that even if it is the way many modern democracies work. A leader who seeks to persuade the electorate i.e. to shift the mythical centre ground, is in another league altogether. Thatcher fell into the latter category. The jury is out on Cameron.

Like many died-in -the-wool Tories, you fail to understand that many centre-right-leaning people with independent judgment no longer regard their votes as the Tory Party's birthright. This is a huge problem for the Tories and it is getting worse. The days of 1950's reflexive deference are gone. People know that for decades the Tories in office talked right and acted left. Hence the argument that winning office is everything cuts no ice ....unless you are a career politician baying for the spoils of office, which is what most of the modernisers are.

I was also amused by your outrage at the idea of the Tory Party being "owned" by a minority of its members. I think you will find that is the preference of its MPs and grandees, especially the likes of Portillo, Maude and Heseltine.

[Valedictoryan]

"...panders to the incoherent prejudices of the electorate..."

From party to national politics, removing control from the nutters ( the incoherently prejudiced electorate) is what drives centralisation...

[Torygirl]

Andrew Alexander in his Daily Mail coloumn today (Fri 12th) reported on the danger UKIP could pose Cameron's Conservatives.

http://tinyurl.com/yf2pqf

Of course, Dave will ignore any reports of defections to UKIP because Dave thinks they are all fruitcakes.

[Larry Green]

I voted for David Cameron but I'm not at all sure I would do if the vote were taken today. Frankly, I'm very disappointed.

Andrew Alexander is absolutely right in what he says. I'm increasingly noting that "heavyweight" commentators seem to be beginning to turn against Cameron.

[Mark McCartney]

According to the Telegraph

Mr Cameron is reported to be an effective fund-raiser, with fetes and raffles replaced by "intimate dinner parties for the super-rich held in private London houses".

Heartwarming to see that the party is becoming ever more inclusive.