Questions for Team Cameron over Greg Dyke

Samuel Coates and I are currently in the USA - discussing the next steps of our BritainAndAmerica project with Washington bloggers, politicians and thinkers.  Apologies for the reduced service this week - all will be back to normal very soon.  We have only been able to watch the Greg Dyke business from afar but it has been a pretty disappointing business...

Here are my questions from the affair:

• Why did Team Cameron think Greg Dyke would be a good candidate to represent London Tories and other Londoners who want control of council tax and crime?   Until falling out with Tony Blair over the Iraq war, Mr Dyke was a lifelong Labour supporter and major donor.  Yet David Cameron apparently regarded him as "an ideal candidate".
• What are we to make of the eagerness of David Cameron and Francis Maude to seek a joint candidate with the Liberal Democrats?  Mr Cameron's aides apparently saw it as an "experiment in new politics" (quoted in The Independent).  What other "experiments" are planned and are being hidden from MPs and members?  ConservativeHome has long suspected that much of Project Cameron is about positioning the party for a deal with the Liberal Democrats in the event of a hung parliament.  This hardly discourages us from that theory.
• Where does this leave the other would-be Tory candidates for London Mayor?  The messages being sent out by CCHQ with bungled operations like this - and last year's delayed contest - hardly help them to build credibility.  This is what Ken Livingstone's spokesman said yesterday: "What this shows is that whoever is eventually selected as Conservative party candidate for mayor has absolutely no confidence from the Tory leadership. When David Cameron says he has total confidence in them to run London it will be a total lie."
• Yesterday Greg Dyke appeared to distance himself from any possibility of standing as an independent.  “I won’t be standing. I was approached by one or two people, and we had chats... I have no intention of standing as an independent, because I’d lose. Ken Livingstone would be difficult to stop,” he told The Times.   If the party was going to propose a high-risk, joint candidacy arrangement with the LibDems, were they sufficiently sure of Mr Dyke's commitment to the idea?
• Was David Cameron willing to abandon the proposed primary process if the Dyke-deal had come off?  That is the suggestion in today's Times.

Comments

[simon]

This mess is typical of the 'arrogance' of ' the top elite' of all the established political parties. At the very least the party chair should carpet the leader publically- but that won't happen as it looks like he was heavily involved in this nonsense! This happens in policy making as well- it's what THEY want, not what the membership wants- and that's what matters! Makes you wonder why we bother in the first place!

[Adam]

This shows a serious error of judgment by Cameron et al. If we seriously considered a socialist as a joint lib dem/tory candidate then whats the point of voting in any election? All three parties might as well divide all seats between them and put their people in and be done with it. it makes you wonder whether the tory hierarchy believes in anything! The chairman of the party should apologise unreservedly to all members for his lack of judgment and for making a mockery of the efforts of all those people who are out canvassing in the upcoming elections and fighting against the lib dems and labour throughout the country.

[Tim Aker]

There's every reason to expect Cameron and Maude would have suspended the primary process had Greg Dyke wanted to run. The leadership and party apparatus do not endorse or 'recruit' any candidates in a primary election. As they are running the election they have to stay neutral and let the candidates influence grassroots voters, not themselves.

Therefore, by expressly saying they went out to recruit Dyke, they're breaching impartiality and showing a downright contempt for grassroots members and conservatives who want a proper conservative to represent them in London - not some washed up socialist from the BBC.

How long are other conservative members going to allow themselves to be strung along by a leadership who, clearly, can't stand us, won't listen to us and will do everything to undermine us and our conservatism? I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that my patience with Cameron and Maude is wearing thin.

[Steve]

It makes me laugh that out here in the sticks in strong Labour areas, we'd take a huge amount of flak from the powers that be if we came to a deal with the Lib Dems to defeat Labour locally.

We could do it, we could be helping run urban centres we wouldn't have a chance of doing otherwise, but we're not allowed to.

But in London apparently, we can even go as far as a joint Lib Dem/Tory candidate.

Ha ha!!!

[Effie Notts]

This is the second B******'S Cammie has dropped this week, the first was allowing little Squeeky Gideon loose on big Gordie and the lot ended up with egg on their collective faces.
A once proud party is steadily becoming more of a joke.

[Mark Fulford]

Most of the time I am optimistic about the direction and leadership of the party, but it was gobsmackingly incompetent to think that this proposal was a good idea. Instead of keeping the media attention on a government that’s on the ropes, we’ve just given the luvvies a let-off and a reason to laugh at us.

Still, with the voters’ choice being between bad, worse and worst, I don’t suppose this will make much difference in the long-run.

[Disraeli]

Simon - if political parties continually did "what the membership wants" then we would probably have endless repeats of Labour's manifesto in 83 and ours in 2001. Politicians need to govern in the countries benefit not to the whims of political activists.

[Michael McGowan]

Tim, I have long believed that the Cameron Project is all about doing a deal with the Lib Dems in the likely event of a hung parliament. That will mean doing a deal with all the Lib Dems, not just the Orange Bookers who are few in number and whose influence and classical liberal views have been greatly exaggerated. Given that the Lib Dems are a party well to the left of Labour, whose views echo those of the Guardian and the BBC, people may be in for a big surprise in the event of a hung parliament and and probably an unpleasant one....

[Jake]

In politics one has to make tactical compromises sometimes to acheive an overall aim . The prize here is to get Labour out of ruling London - a thing which London desperately needs . This one seems a bit of a stretch though - Dyke ? - no friend of the Tory's and tarnished with Blairism and his BBC and Labour history history . Not impossible but pretty unlikely .
The LibDems ? a grotty lot with no principals and are being threatened by the Greens .

Cameron needs to take much greater care to communicate with his core vote .

[Michael McGowan]

Disraeli, what makes you think that our politicians, in any major party, have any intention of governing for the benefit of the country? Their track record over many decades suggests quite the opposite. So the days are long gone when activists should pay up, shut up and leave good governance to their elders and betters.

[Michael Rutherford]

Greg Dyke is certainly no socialist and while he wouldn't be my first choice as a candidate, why not test the water and see if such an idea can work. Party members were always going to be given a choice, it's not going to be forced on them.

We have to move away from thinking that a candidate has to be the candidate of party members. We want someone that will get elected and has some decent policies, not someone that given their all for the party. We have to think much more widely than our place as party activists.

[simon]

Disraeli's comments illustrate what is wrong with our representative democracy today! We have 'democracy' but only so far. Heaven help us if we want to decide our future in the European Union; have any real say on immigration/asylum; decide on whether to re-introduce capital punishment for specific crimes! What amazes me is that no 'shadow cabinet' member has said anything on the issue! Are they that neuteured? I think, on reflection, Francis Maude needs to resign, and DC issue an unreserved apology to the party. We do not need any more of this buffoonery in the run up to a general Election thank you very much. Didn't these people go to university? And aren't meant to be relatively well-educated?!

[Sean Fear]

I diagree. Everything that Greg Dyke has said or done demonstrates that he is very firmly on the Left of the political spectrum. There is no way that we should ever have contemplated his being our candidate.

[Sean Fear]

Simon, what we have has is rule by oligarchy, with some limited democratic input.

[Daniel VA]

I've been disappointed by the speed with which all and sundry have seemingly rushed to judgement on this story.

If I was a London-based Conservative, I would have been interested to hear from Greg Dyke about what he would have offered in terms of being a Conservative-backed candidate rather than simply snorting in disgust and dismissing him out of hand without hearing his ideas.

Of course I expected the hoots of derision from the usual quarter on here, but the almost complete lack of fair-mindedness and reason shown in response to the approach to Greg Dyke is rather bad form.

[Og]

This is entirely consistent with all that has happened since Dave won the leadership. The mission is to win something, anything, and to have the earthly glory of saying "Look - a Conservative winner!". It doesn't matter a jot to Dave or Fraude or Steve or even Letwin what conservative principles get jettisoned in order to do achieve this. Their goal is a bauble, not conservatism.

My suggestion would be for the Conservative Party membership to expel these social democrat statists and force them to join the party that most equates to their view of the world, the LibDems. That they remain as tories must be down to vanity or snobbery or something. They want the life of a Tory MP or grandee, but with the socialism and big-spendism that they think will gurantee them permanent popularity.

[simon]

Quite right Sean! It's quite depressing isn't it?! I think you're being a tad generous on your 'limited democratic input' point! Neither would i say that our 'establishment' and 'political top-classes' are an elite. More like a case-study of the 'if anything can go wrong- it will go wrong' theory...

[machia]

I think the truth is even more worrying.

Hilton/Maude/cameron knew that the Lib Dems would say no. But what they wanted was to send a message to the electorate that the party had changes and is closer to the Lib Dems on the political spectrum.

Thsi is a cynical stunt designed to deeive the electorate and is all about messaging and no substance at all.

its not dig whistling but it works in the same sub conscious basis.

[Henry Rogers]

(....We have to move away from thinking that a candidate has to be the candidate of party members. We want someone that will get elected and has some decent policies, not someone that given their all for the party....) Michael Rutherford 12:33

Presumably party members (of any party) pay their subs with the feeling that though their own party's policies aren't perfect they are at least better than what ever else is on offer. I'd also suggest that most people who pay do a sub, whoever they pay it to, genuinely think that 'better' means 'better for the country as a whole'. So you can't really expect much enthusiasm from people who pay subs for candidates who don't share the same definition of 'better'. Greg Dyke has lots of qualities I admire but I would never have considered voting for him however sincere I think he is. (Which I do.)

I think the whole trouble with the Mayor of London job is that there aren't enough democratic checks on what the successful candidate does in office. KL has managed to spend a lot more money than many of us think he should just because that. I've heard Steve Norris on the Mayor's powers and though I'm sure he would be altogether more responsible with Londoners' money I got the impression he didn't think Mayoral powers need restraining.

There are times when any fair-minded person has to feel sorry for any Party Chairman. Perhaps it might be easier for all concerned if that post too was one subject to the votes of members.

[Michael McGowan]

Daniel VA, I haven't seen anyone snorting in disgust or dismissing Greg Dyke out of hand. So you have just made that up. Not surprising given your general deference to the leadership of the Conservative Party. The valid point made is that Greg Dyke has not until now shown any centre-right leanings whatsoever. Quite the opposite. He was a comitted supporter of Labour until he fell out with Blair over the Iraq War where he was part of the Lib Dem/Respect/BBC/Guardian attack on Blair FROM THE LEFT. If you want someone with those views to be Mayor of London, why not stick with Livingstone?

[Peter Hatchet]

I normally defend Cameron against some of the shrill anti-Cameron sentiments put out on this site, but in the case I think David has got it terribly wrong.

To the posters here defending the move with "we should have waited to see what platform Dyke would offer" I say that's rather like waiting to see what Tony Benn would offer.

We know Dyke is on the left of the political spectrum, has left-wing predjudicies and left-wing ideals - including an extreme view of multiculturalism eptimised by his infamous "hideously white" comment.

No matter what he might have 'said' to run as a Tory/Lib Dem candidate he would have had no credibility with me unless he'd joined our party.

More disturbingly though is the fact that we seem to be admitting defeat before we've even tried. Who's to say a Conservative candidate CAN'T beat Ken? Who's to say we CAN'T achieve an overall majority next time?
We're only a smidgen away from that in the polls.

Why all this cynicism?

My personal view is that it is down to Maude.

I'm personally lost confidence in him and his judgement.

[Henry Mayhew]

Just as I was beginning to think Mr Cameron is such a good politician I should give him the benefit of the doubt.

A little OE joke too far.

[Matt Davis]

This has been a tawdry and badly handled mess which is an absolute gift to our opponents, especially Livingstone.One thing that it proves for sure is that Cameron and Maude couldn't care less about London, because if they did then they would be working to ensure a Conservative candidate who can beat Livingstone, and who would have been selected long ago. Instead they are choosing to play idiotic games with the very people that some of us have to spend our time fighting politically, the LibDems.A disgraceful and pathetic performance.

[CDM]

I consider myself a Cameron fan, but he got this completely wrong. He seems to have forgotten that the Lib Dems are still a rival party, who we need to thrash in the south of England to get an overall majority.

[Local Electioneer]

So much for the 'vote UKIP get Labour/LibDem' line, Cameron was actually trying to put up a Labour man as his official candidate on a joint LibDem ticket.

Vote Tory get Labour in Blue/Yellow ribbons.

[Alan S]

I can't stand much more of this LibDemisation of our party.

[George Hinton]

What a shambles.
Dyke is an unrepentant leftie, who left NuLab, after the Beeb sacked him, in a fit of pique.
One expects better of Team DC, whosoever responsible needs a jolly good kicking to the maritals and be made to construe some unintelligble maxim many times over.

[Editor]

This is what Charles Moore writes about Greg Dyke in this week's Spectator:

"Mr Dyke is very exciting to some because he is quite famous, quite unTory in demeanour, and a former Labour supporter. Unfortunately, as any student of the Hutton affair and reader of his lachrymose memoirs, Inside Story, will know, he is also, politically, a moron. He was so busy with his BBC internal boosterism (‘Making It Happen’) that he failed to get a grip of the row about the death of Dr David Kelly, and was comprehensively outmanoeuvred by his former hero, Mr Blair. His politics — sentimental leftism, a tendency to compare himself with Nelson Mandela — are unchanged, but now he is motivated by revenge against the Prime Minister. How does that help the Tories in the post-Blair era? What has it got to do with the wellbeing of London? With Mr Blair gone, Ken Livingstone will be the most accomplished political operator of the age. He would make mincemeat of the unemployed millionaire with a grudge."

[aristeides]

"More disturbingly though is the fact that we seem to be admitting defeat before we've even tried. Who's to say a Conservative candidate CAN'T beat Ken?" Peter Hatchett.

Never a truer word spoken.

[Scotty]

God what a depressing bunch of comments, and before anyone jumps down my throat I don't want any coalition with the libdems period!
I have to say that when it comes to choosing the next conservative London Mayor the party is going to have to be bold and look out of the box.
I don't think that it was solely down to Ken Livingston's previous career that he won first time round, I think the fact that he was INDEPENDENT was a big attraction to many voters.
But still Londoner Conservatives should be used to that lovely warm glow of defeat mixed with the satisfaction that although Ken will still be in charge at least the failed candidate was the "right" sort of tory.

[Cameroonian balls above]

Ken *wasn't* an independent, he was a Labour socialist who wasn't the official Labour candidate. Much like Dyke wouldn't have been a non party independent either, but instead an, in truth, ex-Labour potty Liberal. Nice one Dave: tell us more about the dangers of voting Lib Dem, why don't you? But to repeat for the 'Roons: it's just a downright lie to imply that London voters thought Ken was some sort of mysterious 'independent' - they knew exactly what he was, and how red he was, more's the pity. But then at least Tory activists now know just how unblue Dave really is. Couldn't give a stuff about internal party democracy, couldn't give a stuff about the calibre of our candidate (Dyke would ahve been hopeless, and would have lost regardless), and worst of all, unable even to outspin the Lib Dems. Pitiful. Gordon's 2nd term here we come.

[AAAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!]

Oi all you blundering posh twits at 30 Millbank - is there ANYONE in there listening???

[Jill Harries]

Where is Steve Norris?

[Poshtwat]

Dear AAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!

You oik! Of course we're not listening. Get on with selling those raffle tickets and leave the politics to your superiors.

[Adam]

Am I the only one who remembers that this was announced?

It was an idea that got floated, and that's it. No message was being sent out - it was a leak (courtesy I think, of Iain Dale), so it's a bit rich for ConHome to complain about bungling.

[Ash Faulkner]

Behold, as the phrase "they're all the same, nothing ever changes" takes on a thoroughly new meaning.

I despair. I really, really do.

[Anon]

If that's the case and all this fuss has been created about an idea that was simply floated, not implemented, not seriously discussed, not negotiated, just floated then it's ridiculous. If that is the case, Iain Dale should be ashamed of himself.

Sometimes bloggers need to consider whether they have become too self-obsessed and arrogant that they bring down the cause they're fighting for.

[Lord Haw Haw]

I dont often agree with the editorial line here but you are correct about this. I'm a big Dave fan but this was just plain stupid at every level!

[Scotty]

"Am I the only one who remembers that this was announced?"
Adam I think it was leaked to the spectator because Charles Moore had already done an article on it, this was followed by Andrew Neil mentioning it on the Daily Politics.
Yes it was simple an idea, but it seems someone wanted to blow it out of the water and leaked it.
Funny thing is I don't think it would ever have seriously got off the ground in either party, but hey lets not miss a chance to bash Cameron!

[David Bullingdon]

Here's an idea. Don't have a Conservative candidate for Mayor, and leave it to the Lib Dems to fight it out with Red Ken.

Then we can concentrate on much more enjoyable social activities.

[Peter Hatchet]

My Questions Ed:

(1) We achieved a big swing to us in London in 2006, why are we admitting defeat before we've even selected a candidate? Why doesn't the leadership have confidence in a Conservative to win?

(2) Why aren't we "preparing the ground" by already attacking Livingstone and his record in advance of selection?

(3) Why are we persisting in pursuing arrangements with the Liberal Democrats when they are clearly NOT interested? Do the leadership have no faith that we can achieve a working majority single-handedly?

(4) Will this "strategy" be repeated again?

(5) Can you please replace Francis Maude as party chairman?

I am yet to meet a Conservative member who has confidence in him.

[RodS]

This has Maude's fingerprints all over it and fits well with the hung parliament/Lib Dem deal theory. It clearly explains the MEP selection stitch up as a sop to the Lib Dem's. What a cosy carve up between professional and mercenary careerists ! It is not power 'to do' any more - it is power 'to be' We are now less democratic than we were 20/30 years ago - a fact that the BNP have latched on to.

[dog biter]

No Conservative should EVER do a deal with the Lib Dems. They are a shifty lot, will say anything to make themselves liked, and are not to be trusted. Oo er. Sounds like DC, dunnit?

[Martin Wright]

No doubt this lack of self confidence and lack of conviction is already being used against us in the current election campaigns. I fear, it will come back to haunt us in later elections, too.

Effectively, it's the moment when we blinked first.

No doubt the intellectual Cameroons thought this was a brilliant strategy. In reality they've shown an alarming lack of wisdom.

[Jake]

What London needs is a fairly non political City Manager -a person to do plunge in , grab the whole situation by the throat and make the multiple things that need to happen (transport ,sewerage ,planning ,airports , leisure , housing - to name but a few )

happen .This, in London , the capital of England and a vastly important world trading and commercial city . One of England 's greatest assets and one which is sorely in need of leadership .

Top priority is to get rid of the louse Livingstone who is constitutionally incapable of any of the above . Then to replace him with someone who can get the show on the road , mobilise the capital ( ie money - and there is plenty out there looking for good home ) and put this into effect . ie leadership and vision .
It might be that Greg Dyke is the man to do this . To get there he has to make amove to communicate with the Tory membership - not just the leaders - and indicate what he envisages and what he is capable of .

So come on Mr Dyke .

[Philip]

When I saw the report on this site yesterday that Greg Dyke could be LibTory candidate for Mayor, I found myself asking if it was April 1st! I cannot think of many things more ridiculous than someone associated with anti-conservative institutions such as the Labour Party (I assume he left it because of Iraq and for not being left-wing enough?) and the BBC, representing us!

Perhaps with all this talk of coalition with the Lib Dems, DC wants to build a Blair-style "Big Tent". But the main common factor between the members of this Big Tent would be that they are not Labour. Can't we have more confidence in the rightness of our own Conservative values? I suspect voters respect adhering to principals, even if unpopular in some quarters, over shifting policy positions for what they may regard as political opportunism and weakness.

[Old Hack]

Several thoughts

a) What about an all woman shortlist for Mayor of London?

b) Did any of the schoolboy-fantasy-politics-players currently running the party ever stop to think that Greg Dyke isn't that electable compared to Livingstone?

We really are just making it up as we go along aren't we?