Helpful as ever, Portillo warns of "Tory collapse"

Michael Portillo has undermined each of the last four Tory leaders so it is no surprise that he has chosen this time - a time of great testing for David Cameron - to undermine a fifth.  I do not deny that there are some important points in today's article from 2001's unsuccessful party leadership candidate but the balance of the piece is predictably destructive.  Mr Portillo also - unwittingly - reveals the central flaws in his version of the modernisation project.

I respond to some key extracts of his Sunday Times article below:

"The Conservative strategy for defeating Gordon Brown lies in tatters even before he has moved from 11 to 10 Downing Street. The Tories recognised that Tony Blair is unbeatable. But Brown, they thought, would be different.  He would be deeply uncharismatic in contrast to both his predecessor and David Cameron and he would hand the election to his opponents by veering to the left.  Conservative high command is the victim of wishful thinking. It was never likely that Brown would shift from the centre ground."

This is actually Michael Portillo's strongest point in his whole article.  Gordon Brown is unlikely to veer sharply to the left but it is true that voters see the Chancellor as decidely more left-wing than Tony Blair.  Last Monday's YouGov/ Channel 4 poll put Brown slightly to the left of his party and 30% to the left of a centrist Tony Blair.  I believe that Tory strategists should be focusing on Brown's incompetence.

"There is no doubt that Cameron has more charisma than Brown, but in recent opinion polls the chancellor leaves the Tory leader far behind in comparisons of “strength”. It is just possible that Britain will elect a candidate on the grounds that he is more charming despite being much weaker, but the Tories should not count on it."

Agree with Mr Portillo on this point and on Monday night I noted that Labour strategy is likely to portray Mr Cameron as weak and lightweight.  In today's Observer a source compares Cameron'n'Osborne to a boy band.  Expect more of that.

"Less predictable was Brown’s offer of positions in the government to the Liberal Democrats. For the Tories, William Hague did his best to portray their refusal of the invitation as a humiliating snub for Brown. More accurately, it plunged Sir Menzies Campbell into a fresh crisis over his leadership, with Liberal Democrats accusing him of vacillation and clumsiness.  It unnerved Labour MPs, forced to recognise Brown’s untrammelled authority to hire and fire without limiting himself to one party. It sent shivers through the Tories as well. They were reminded that Brown and Campbell are friends and even travel together to and from their constituencies in Fife. It is easy to imagine that the two could do a deal if Labour fails to get an overall majority in 2010 (assuming that last week’s events have not already destroyed Campbell). The prospect of a Conservative government slipped a notch further away."

This is contradictory.  Did Mr Brown make his offer(s) to plunge Ming into crisis or does he want Ming as a coalition partner after the next election?  Mr Portillo clearly has no idea.

"Cameron’s wide lead was the only thing that kept the diehards quiet for a while. Now they can argue that the modernisation project is failing."

That is in danger of being true.  My guess is that at least 50% of members will support Cameron however he performs (fewer MPs will). Roughly 25% are ideologically opposed to his project and another 25% or so are supportive as long as he delivers opinion poll progress.

"The leadership has made mistakes, such as attacking grammar schools head-on and announcing the reintroduction of museum charges. But Tory MPs and the party rank-and-file have performed far worse. Their undisciplined revolt against Cameron’s modernisation project has confirmed that the party is divided. It reinforces the public’s view that even if Cameron is different, the party is unchanged."

Wait a minute!  Do you remember your article, Mr Portillo, that called for blood on the carpet? You urged "brutality".  You said that this would silence Cameron's critics.  It was only ever going to make the party look divided!  The modernisers have always foolishly believed that a big row - a Caluse IV moment etc - would confirm in the public's mind that the party is changing.   Now that over-zealous modernisation has made the party look divided, Portillo et al are protesting.  The party was loyal and quiet for much of Project Cameron's modernisation but grammarsgate and the talk of "delusional" behaviour was one step too far... but a lot of us now want to put that episode behind us.

"Lamentably, the signs are that Cameron is now caving in to Tory pressure. Hague and David Davis were wheeled out to reassure the faithful."

'Project Whitelaw' should have been in operation many months ago.  Hague, Davis and Fox have been silent for too long.  Their recent interventions have not been undermining of the leadership.  They are now (belatedly) communicating to core supporters that they are largely content with Project Cameron and explaining why.  Hague and Fox backed Cameron on grammars.  In yesterday's Telegraph Davis explained the importance of the 'detoxification' process and backed Cameron's environmentalism (see Iain Dale's commentary on Davis' intervention).

"Cameron knows that reassuring the party and widening its electoral support are opposites."

Here Portillo exposes the central problem of the Tory modernisers.  To use his own expression, Portillo just 'does not get it'.  Where Project Cameron has become vulnerable is that it has been a programme of change and substitution rather than of broadening and deepening.  It has been seen to downplay tradational Tory policies on crime, Europe and immigration even though those policies were and are popular.  It has been right to emphasise social justice and green issues but this should have been done alongside faithfulness to the core messages.  There is no contradiction between wanting tough border controls and having a practical heart for the hungry of Africa.  There is no contradiction between wanting to build more prisons and mending the broken families that are a leading cause of crime.  I propose the following golden rule for David Cameron to follow from now on: SPEND AS MUCH TIME TALKING ABOUT TRADITIONAL ISSUES AS BREADTH ISSUES.

"Hague’s one apparent enthusiasm in foreign policy (on which he is the party spokesman) is Europe-bashing. Depressingly, the signs are that he is to be unleashed again as the Tories cry tallyho against the new treaty."

What nonsense. I'd like William to be a much more energetic Shadow Foreign Secretary (I fear he is too distracted by his business interests) but I think he has learnt from the over-emphasis on 'keeping the pound' in 2001.  His time as SFS has been spent on a wide range of issues including a new focus on India, opposing human trafficking and he is soon to give a big speech on the Middle East.  Over the last 48 hours William Hague's statements on the draft EU Treaty have been strong but not OTT.  There has been no "Europe-bashing".  The man stuck in 2001 is Michael 'Hague-bashing' Portillo.  He clearly hasn't got over his disagreements with William Hague from that time.

"I have always doubted that the Conservatives could win the next election. Now the question in my mind is different: can the Tories ever win again?"

With those words Mr Portillo concludes his piece.  Thanks Michael. Very helpful. Who needs enemies when the party has friends like you?

Comments

[Ben Surtees]

Portillo, as usual, displaying his enduring bitterness and a desperation to be proven right... a case of "cutting his nose to spite his face" IMHO.

[Jennifer Wells]

Michael Portillo is probably the most self-indulgent politician in our party's history. As a right-wing hardliner he did so much damage to us in the 1990s. Defeated he then went on this modernisation journey and has advocated a plan that has divided the Conservative Party. The party made him and now he wants to destroy it.

[Alan S]

Your advice is very good Tim.
Does CCHQ ever talk to you about what you recommend?

[Don Hoyle]

Mr Portillo might be outside the tent these days (he said recently that, as a political commentator and thus to retain neutrality, he no longer enjoys membership of any political party. And remember, the man still has to earn a living!) but I couldn't help blowing a fuse this morning at someone who is desperately undermining what little credibility we have left on the EU and Blair's sell-out. Mr K Clarke Esq.

On Andrew Marr's programme this morning, colourful Ken blandly dismissed any call for a referendum, declaring that we never held a referendum on Maastricht (the treaty he famously never read) so why should we hold one now, when the constitution/treaty/tidying-up-exercise cedes far fewer powers across to Brussels than Maastricht ever did?

[Pete]

It's simple really: Portillo is working for Portillo. His lucrative TV/newspaper activity requires abrasiveness from him not consistency. This is only tempered by his need to be consistent in saying the things that sound sweet for the "European" companies with which he has directorships.

[Traditional Tory]

Difficult to disagree with the logic of anything Portillo is saying today, but as you rightly point out he has changed his tune considerably from the one he was singing when Dave's star was firmly in the ascendent.

The man has been all over the place since he roused the Bournemouth conference to a huge standing ovation with that gung-ho drivel about sending in the SAS, foreign degrees not worth the paper they were printed on etc.

I walked out before the end of Portillo's ridiculous rant, despite the fact that he was supposed to be the 'right wing darling' in those days.

But I wonder how many of the Cameron Fan Club can put their hands up and declare that they did not support Portillo's unprincipled and creepy 2001 failed leadership bid.

Very few I suspect. It goes with the territory.

[Louise]

Come on, guys! Portillo is indeed only in his *media career* for himself. But I feel he is also concerned for the good of the party. When a certain Michael Howard became leader in 2003 he refused a Shadow Cabinet posting (designed to keep him on-message) and voluntarily quit parliament so as not to become the focus of resentment for people like you who are sacrificing the party's chances of convincing people that we can actually govern again (like you did me, the Labour defector who is now seriously looking at Gordon Brown and thinking 10 years as Chancellor keeping the boat steady at least while Blair gallivanted off on all his foreign holidays like the one that had him forced to hand in his notice two years early last summer) rather than just poncing about making vague claims to environmentalism. As the daughter of a geographer and the sister of a geographer, I can also tell you that most of Cameron's environmental policies don't stand up to their rigorous scrutiny - if he wants to stop climate change, he might actually stop increasing the hot air emissions he makes and get down to some serious policy work. Eighteen months in and all he can say about Labour are that they are incompetent. Eighteen months in and Howard was fighting an election based on a solid if slightly anaemic manifesto.

Your choice: charisma and perpetual opposition as Labour reinvent themselves and gain in the polls or change and get back into government. There is a suitable candidate waiting on the backbenches.

Hint.

[malcolm]

Consistency is not required in a journalist Tim as your experience as a press secretary must have made you very aware. Also if one looks at Michael Portillos career it becomes very clear that really the only thing that matters to him is Michael Portillo himself. It is very naive of us to expect us to expect an loyalty from Portillo because we sure as hell aren't going to get it. As another poster mentioned it was foolish of us to invite him to chair constituency hustings etc. We should make sure that EVERYONE is aware that Portillo doesn't speak for the Conservative Party anymore.
He is an interesting journalist though. He does stick his head over the parapet and make predictions which often turn out to be wrong. Perhaps some intern at CCHQ should go through all his articles pick say the top dozen of his biggest mistakes as a journalist and make sure they are press released to all the Sunday Times rivals.

[Mark Fulford]

The Conservative Party should disown Portillo as a self-interested media clown.

[Gunther]

Should Portillo have been elected Leader of the Conservative Party? Many thought so at the time. It is not too late now.

[Editor]

I do talk to members of Cameron's team, frontbenchers or MPs most days, Alan.

[mark]

"Cameron knows that reassuring the party and widening its electoral support are opposites".

This is not the case, as in medicine a long term decline in health can need drastic treatment for the acute symptoms followed up by a plan to improve the patient through a plan for healthy living.
The "sick" patient in this case is Britain which has been abusing it's health for ten years and now needs urgent treatment. For example it is ok to say that the hard core of criminals who commit all of the crime should be locked up long term in new prisons and at the same time bring in measures to steer youngsters away from crime. Similar approaches to the economy and immigration would be welcomed by the electorate and the party leading to support in depth instead of appeasement of factions.

[gingeral]

Portillo really is unspeakably arrogant. My personal favourite was last week's article when he was talking about the swivel-eyed Eurosceptics that had turned people off the party in the 1990s (he cited Bill Cash and John Redwood as examples). YOU WERE ONE OF THEM MICHAEL!

[Traditional Tory]

Gunther - Should Portillo have been elected Leader of the Conservative Party? Many thought so at the time. It is not too late now.

The fact that he is no longer an MP could pose something of a problem don't you think?

[Reality check]

Portillo has never got over his failure to beat IDS in the MPs' ballot - largely due to the arrogance and incompetence of his campaign team that was led by Francis Maude.

Maude found a new "modernising" candidate to back - David Cameron - and Portillo has been left to lick his wounds whilst green with envy.

All that Portillo can contribute is more bile and contempt. The association in Kensington & Chelsea even through a goodbye party for him. He said that it would be his last party meeting.

This begs the question as to why the Candidates Department invites the treacherous has-been to chair open primary selections in target seats.

The simple message is that Portillo should GTF!!

[Traditional Tory]

YOU WERE ONE OF THEM MICHAEL!

Wasn't Portillo generally recognised as the ringleader of Major's infamous 'bastards'?

Remember those phone phone lines he had installed when it looked as if Major were about to go down the toilet?

An opportunist par excellence

[simon]

The only thing consistent about Portillo is his inconsistency! The problem with DC i suspect is not DC himself, but his 'ok yah' clique of advisers- or the 'Wright Stuff' lite brigade. Just look who he has 'advising' him over PMQ tactics- Clarke ( Dear God), Major ( Bless him), and IDS! If he's serious about getting into power he needs to ditch a lot of people and become 'his owm man' with a staff who are based in 'working class conservatism', not 'Notting Hill conservatism'. The Thatch understood this. Tebbit understood this. Cameron, it appears, does not.

[bluepatriot]

Editor: Where Project Cameron has become vulnerable is that it has been a programme of change and substitution rather than of broadening and deepening. It has been seen to downplay tradational Tory policies on crime, Europe and immigration even though those policies were and are popular. It has been right to emphasise social justice and green issues but this should have been done alongside faithfulness to the core messages. There is no contradiction between wanting tough border controls and having a practical heart for the hungry of Africa. There is no contradiction between wanting to build more prisons and mending the broken families that are a leading cause of crime. I propose the following golden rule for David Cameron to follow from now on: SPEND AS MUCH TIME TALKING ABOUT TRADITIONAL ISSUES AS BREADTH ISSUES."

Very good points.

[michael miller]

The Portillo article I hope and expect we only stiffen David Cameron's resolve to change the perception of the party and not pander to the hard core Tory vote. He and the ENTIRE party must show total commitment to winning and nothing must stand in the way of this mission. To rephrase an infamous line " The man's not for turning"
There can be no alternative.

[Observer]

MORI POLL

The detailed policy list is interesting

[Alan S]

michael miller is more or less right.

I think Cameron has the wrong strategy but to change it now would make him look very weak.

The gain to be had from a change of strategy would be overtaken by the u-turn factor.

[Editor]

Thank you Observer. I've now added that link to the post on the MORI survey.

[Traditional Tory]

michael miller - He and the ENTIRE party must show total commitment to winning and nothing must stand in the way of this mission.

Michael, don't you think that's a pretty dumb statement?

If Cameron doesn't moderate his stance and show some courtesy and consideration to core Tory supporters what makes you suppose that we are going to become enthusiastic about his so-called 'mission'?

Cameron is unproved, controversial, and surrounded by fair-weather friends. If he loses his lead in the polls he loses his one tangible asset.

[Christina]

Don Hoyle @ 10:47
"On Andrew Marr's programme this morning, colourful Ken blandly dismissed any call for a referendum, declaring that we never held a referendum on Maastricht (the treaty he famously never read) so why should we hold one now, when the constitution/treaty/tidying-up-exercise cedes far fewer powers across to Brussels than Maastricht ever did?"

This looks far more relevant than what former Conservative Portillo has to say/write. Is Ken Clarke going to do a 'Graham Brady'? Has he already done so?

Looks like it to me.

[Tapestry]

The media is in full cry trying to slide the EU Constitution past the noses of the people, and puff up Gordon Brown, the man selected to perform their final act of treachery. Which names would you expect to be at the forefront - Portillo? yes. Ken Clarke? yes.

The Portillo critique is pantomime, straight from Bruce Forsyth's The Generation Game. 'Modernise more, modernise more - not that much.' Portillo's starting to look and sound dated, which is quite comical for a professed moderniser. It would be nice to take him seriously, but who does?

Ken Clarke's brilliance is combined with his usual appalling inattention to detail. He needs a damned good thrashing. He'd look perfect in 1930's school cap, short trousers and a blazer wouldn't he, combined with cheeky grin. 'Just William' springs to mind.

If these two jokers are the worst the media can find to throw at us, then we can get straight back to the serious business. Hague's impressing me no end.

Cameron should let the media do their worst, not rush out and lower himself to responding to such nonsense. He will pick his moment, once all the Brown ballyhoo starts to tire. Knowing Gordon Brown, he won't have long to wait.

[Traditional Tory]

He needs a damned good thrashing. He'd look perfect in 1930's school cap, short trousers and a blazer wouldn't he, combined with cheeky grin. 'Just William' springs to mind

Tapestry I'm getting very worried about you.

There are fetishes and fetishes... ;)

[Reality check]

Christina wrote "why should we hold one now, when the constitution/treaty/tidying-up- exercise cedes far fewer powers across to Brussels than Maastricht ever did?"

That is the nonsense spread by Blair (Dave's cronies/advisers Clarke, Patten and Heseltine) about the constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters.

The reality is that the proposed new treaty will cede around 52 new powers from Member States to Brussels, IN ADDITION to those ceded in the treaties of Masstrict, Amsterdam and Nice.

I can only assume that Christina is a Tory Reform Group.Mainstream harpie who is spreading the usual Europhile lies.

[michael miller]

To the "Traditional Tory"- I have been a member of the party since 1959 and I am fed up with losing. The accusation you make against Cameron is ridiculous. If you want to fight the next election like the last two, then I am afraid Portillo will be proved right. Society and public attitudes has moved on and whether we like it or not, we have to reconise this and adapt.

[Yet Another Anon]

Normal media guff, just adds to all the other guff that he and Matthew Parris have been writing. Build someone up to knock them down and see the money keep flowing in as people fall for it. They are all so full of themselves!

[James Maskell]

Disappointing news but bearing in mind Brown gets coronated today and that the Tories havent had an easy past month or so (self inflicted of course), its not entirely suprizing.

As for Portillo, I'd rather he was a little more constructive about it.

Does anyone know where a copy of this new EU treaty can be found?

[Mark Fulford]

Observer, thanks for the link to the Mori data. The answers to Q12, “Which party did you vote for at the General Election on May 5th 2005?” is very revealing. In the Mori poll, 35% had voted Labour and 20% had voted Conservative. If it were a fair sample, that would indicate that Labour got 75% more votes than Conservatives in 2005. In reality Labour only got 10% more (9,562,122 votes compared to 8,772,598).

Where does Mori get these people from?

[Simon Lamb]

I was reminded of the reason why President Johnson refused to sack Hoover as Director of the FBI. Can the party either side line Portillo or find him something useful to do so that his fire is directed at the enemy. Failing that, why not make him Governor of the Falkland Islands where he can put his Anglo-Spanish background to good use?

[HF]

Portillo has always lacked political judgement, I find Dianne Abbot's views on This Week more interesting.

Well done Tim.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Wasn't Portillo generally recognised as the ringleader of Major's infamous 'bastards'?

No he wasn't. He would not have had the balls or the principles.

"Come on, guys! Portillo is indeed only in his *media career* for himself. But I feel he is also concerned for the good of the party. When a certain Michael Howard became leader in 2003 he refused a Shadow Cabinet posting (designed to keep him on-message) and voluntarily quit parliament so as not to become the focus of resentment for people like you .......

Portillo was concerned for the good of Portillo, he did not leave the party for its benefit, he was finished otherwise he would not be continually criticising it. It is apparent that he spends too much time imbibing the ant- conservative atmosphere at the BBC, one of his employers.

Having said that, I am no supporter of Cameron either, but my reasons are different from those of the swivel eyed, Euroapologist, wet liberal, flip flopping Portillo: my dislike of Cameron is based on the fact that he is a poor excuse for a Conservative - the Conservative Party isn't one. Do you think Cameron is going to slap down Clarke on his rejection of the need for a referendum? We live in hopes. but....

[Traditional Tory]

michael miller - The accusation you make against Cameron is ridiculous.

Which accusation?

Society and public attitudes has moved on

In what respect?

[Don Hoyle]

Reality Check @ 11:44

I fear you have traduced Christina. She quoted from my posting @ 10:47; her remarks were the very opposite of what you, in fact, implied. (And if Christina is who I think she is, I do not think she would take too kindly to being conjoined with the TRG!)

Apropos Christina's post, I recall during Ken Clarke's leadership election(s) that the biggest movement among the voters was the ABC movement (vote for Anyone But Clarke).

[michael miller]

"Traditional Tory"- David Cameron has not show any lack of courtesy or consideration to the party loyalists-what he has been showing is leasdership and how we can win.With regard to society I suggest you watch 5 minutes of Big Brother to see what I mean.

[Sean fear]

It's clear that the Conservative Party dodged a very wide bullet when Portillo didn't become leader in 2001.

To my embarassment, I supported him then.

[simonh]

If I'm permitted to intervene as a non-Tory, it's clearly true that Portillo has shifted positions dramatically over the years and that, as a journalist, he's ultimately in it for himself. But so what? He's either right in what he says or wrong and on a number of his key points, the editor of CH seems to agree with him, more or less.

To me, the most significant point seems to be that Cameron has been supported within the Tory party, because he looks like a winner. Should he stop looking like a winner (and one poll is too early to judge), will internal divisions re-emerge?

[Scotty]

"I have always doubted that the Conservatives could win the next election. Now the question in my mind is different: can the Tories ever win again?"

Good fisk of Portillo's article. Having come to this conclusion on the chances of the party at the next GE so early on, even before the start of a Brown Premiership shows an amazing lack of astute political thinking. Considering his Conservative history I find this lack of loyalty or optimism in the party's future very telling, and I think it says more about someone who saw it as a vehicle for their own ambitions more than anything else.
I don't buy the "cop out" that his job now requires him to be neutral, his articles and his backside on a seat on This Week was gained because of his "conservative credentials" not because he was some all seeing political pundit.

[Traditional Tory]

"Traditional Tory"- David Cameron has not show any lack of courtesy or consideration to the party loyalists

'Deluded'...'headbangers' etc., etc.

I'm only echoing the words of a very sensible article by Iain Martin in last week's Sunday Telegraph which I presume you missed.

With regard to society I suggest you watch 5 minutes of Big Brother to see what I mean.

If you seriously believe 'Big Brother' - which Nicholas Soames rightly described as a 'freak show' - is in any way representative of normal British life I can only suggest that you get out a little more...

...assuming we can prise you away from your TV.

[Scotty]

"It's clear that the Conservative Party dodged a very wide bullet when Portillo didn't become leader in 2001.

To my embarassment, I supported him then."

Sean, I did not want Portillo, Clarke or IDS and in fact favoured Fox as our best hope back then! I still find it amazing how my view of each of them has changed in the intervening years. I was depressed at the fact that having finally being given a say in the leadership contest the PLP had served up two candidates that did not have a chance against Blair.
Many blamed the grassroots for choosing IDS, but I blamed the Parliamentary party for not being forward thinking or understanding the need for a real change, even after witnessing the mistakes of the Labour party back in the 80's.
But then again, maybe we had too many ambitious MP's who saw being the next leader as a poisoned chalice and decided to wait. It cost us dearly and the way that IDS was eventually dispatched meant that after 10 years we only gained 30 MP's in spite of all the mistakes made by this government.

[Nikki C]

I think a lot of the problem about Portillo revolved round the "gay" rumoursd that then turned out to be true.

I know a number of people who would never support him again after all that came out.

[michael miller]

"Traditional Tory"- one article however well written does not mean we should all accept it or indeed agree with its tone

You do not get the point re Big Brother- it may well be a freak show as you say, but millions vote for it and the tabloids are dominated by it. You cannot say that public attitudes have not changed in the past few years and in its course standards have sometimes been lowered- this is a large part of society we have to talk to. Big Brother and its many followers only reflects the world as it now is, not as we would like it to be.

Can we please direct our energies onto how we defeat Brown, not each other!

[Traditional Tory]

You do not get the point re Big Brother- it may well be a freak show as you say, but millions vote for it and the tabloids are dominated by it.

And it is extremely unlikely that those people are going to vote for ourselves or for any other party. Gordon Brown may turn up in a suit from Oxfam when the invitation says 'white tie' but he is no more likely to appeal to the mindless idiots who watch Big Brother than the toffiest toff from Eton and Oxford.

Every age has its mindless morons. Can you seriously imagine Disraeli announcing that he intended to chase the votes of the 'dead drunk for tuppence' fraternity? Of course not.

What is much more important is that we - and by 'we' I mean each individual one of us - remain true to our beliefs and principles. That does not include pretending to 'understand' trash like Big Brother which most of us actively despise.

As John Major - with a rare flash of insight - once said, we should understand a little less and condemn a little more.

[ScotsToryB]

James, I think, asked

Does anyone know where a copy of this new EU treaty can be found?

Go here:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

and three or four articles down.

STB

[anti-taliban]

Come on Taliban Tim - the last 4 leaders have needed no help in undermining themselves! Who listens to Portillo? - apart from you, who seems to be obsessed.

[William MacDougall]

Dear Tim, as always I enjoyed your analysis, though I think it is too positive about Cameron.

Portillo is suggesting that if only Cameron moved even further to the left we would win. It echoes the belief of some rightwingers that if only we went far enough to the right we would win. Both are wrong. What we need - and are not getting - are policies targeted at swing Lib Dem and Labour voters. Campaigning against grammars or staying in the EPP are just not relevant to that, any more than an emphasis on Europe was before.

That is why the Cameron project is failing. Cameron is losing core support by abandoning Conservative principles, without even winning much centrist support. With such a discredited Labour leadership we should be doing much much better in the polls. Time to think again.

[Andrew Lilico]

Referring to the comments, rather than to Tim's fisk (which has its own interest, and I'll comment in a moment), I see little to be gained in Portillo-bashing. He's just a journalist, for goodness' sake! Do you think the appropriate thing to do with Matthew Parris articles is to attack the man, rather than his argument? It seems to me like Portillo's remarks arouse in us the resentment that many of us feel about his political career - that he let us down, by being too loyal and not ruthless enough in wielding the knife (as some of us see it) or being too inclined to treason (as others see it), or being spineless or inconsistent. But that was all the day before yesterday, guys! It's not even old news any more. Now he's just a journalist, and his arguments stand or fall on their own - he doesn't represent anybody but himself on the day of writing, and he doesn't pretend or need to.

[Scotty]

"Dear Tim, as always I enjoyed your analysis, though I think it is too positive about Cameron."

Shock news that unlike former Conservative MP, Minister and party member Michael Portillo the aptly named ConservativeHome grass roots blog is criticised for being positive about the present leader of the party who was elected less than two years ago by the grass roots.
If Tim ever starts being too positive about Brown or the Libdem leader then I might start to worry.

[Andrew Lilico]

To substance: Portillo is clearly right to warn against the dangers of falling into a core-vote-Tory strategy. I think it hard to take seriously his "fear" that this might be what Cameron is about to do - one should interpret his article as a backbone-building, urging, piece, rather than the depressing prophecy it looks like.

But, nonetheless, interpreted as urging, he's right, isn't he? We don't want Cameron to say "OK. I'm sorry. I was all wrong to want to appeal to centrist voters. Let's see whether we can animate our own side and win by achieving high turnout. So, let's go for it - as of tomorrow, I'm announcing that we'll cut taxes by £20bn in the first budget (I'm not sure how we'll fund that, but I'm sure we can work it out later - there's bound to be some fraud and waste that'll do it); that we aren't going to allow any immigrants into Britain, especially if they're black, French, or German; that we'll be leaving the EU immediately after the election, and imposing sanctions on the Spaniards for their shameful treatment of Gibraltar; and we'll be calling for the return of Section 28, the abolition of civil partnership, and a ban on adoption by homosexuals."

Or am I wrong?

[Aghast]

No, just being puerile (on this occasion)

[Tapestry]

What Portillo's overlooking is that as the old structures fade, new alliances become possible. Brown's courting Liberal Democrats as fast as he can, no doubt spurred on by Cameron's effective love-bombing which has reduced Lib Dem support.

Cameron's next job will be to form alliance with Labour left-wingers, who share his views about Brown's welching on the referendum promise.

What goes around, comes around. The more the old allegiances are loosened, the easier it is for votes to float, and old loyalties to become less certain.

Portillo's writing in a world as it was where the Lib Dems were growing, not shrinking. He's writing as if at the beginning of the Blair era. Cameron's played the final years of the Blair era well.

With Brown ignoring the conventions of the Parliamentary system, there is not the certainty that the old ways still apply. It's BRown breaking the loyalties. Does he expect there to be no consequences in return?

Portillo and Brown are both assuming that Labour MPs will not rebel in significant numbers over the referendum. It is too soon to be sure about that. If cameron can bring the policy that has 85% backing with the electorate and appeals to Brown's own MPs, there is a chance that the tidy world Portillo imagines still exists where the powerful bully the weak, will not be there any more.

[Louise]

When even the party faithful start talking about Ken Clarke, then the leader is in BIG trouble.

Problem is Ken has been on the backbenches for ten years, and a certain other person for three and a half all in.

Or are you all afraid of going back to the future?

Hint.

[Ay Up]

CH shouldn't give this man the oxygen of publicity imho! Good fisk though.

Portillo's dead wrong (and the most aloof man I've ever met) - we're going to beat Brown, and beat him big.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Or am I wrong?

Posted by: Andrew Lilico | June 24, 2007 at 14:26

Apart from your apparently facitious remarks that preceed your, "Or am I wrong?"comment, yes you are wrong and have trivialised problems that concern the majority and in answer:
1. There is no need for Cameron to apologise just as long as from now on he emphasises policies based on core conservative principles.
2. He should be propounding that he intends to cut taxes and put money back into our pockets soonest pointing out that the money allocated to NHS etc must be spent more effectively.
3. He should be "banging on about immigration". You remarks about excluding "blacks, French or Germans" appears to be implying that those of us that believe uncontrolled "swamping" (I believe Blunkett used that word) by immigration are racists - the usual argument from the Left.
4. He should also be banging on about the EU and stating that we are quite prepared to stay in the EU if it is a genuine Common Market as we we told originally and power transfered back to Parliament otherwise out we come.
5. We have told the Gibaltarians that we will honour their vote to stay British if that is what they want and if that means a disagreement with Spain so be it.
6. And on a subject that you have not touched upon: he on should button up about dire climate change and advocating stupid policies connected with taxing air travel out of existence. There isn't any consensus on climate change only a consensus that the climate has always changed and it was not to long ago we were beibg warned of another ice age.
7. In Scotland a poll resulted overwhelming that the Scots did not want S. 28 repealed, but the Scots parliament repealed it just the same. I do not believe that the majority in England would have voted differently nor do I believe they would have voted for the adoption or civil partnerships legislation.

If Cameron wants to win he has to get the disenfranchised conservatives to return. He will further help his cause to state the case for an English Parliament - the voters would return in large numbers - otherwise Cameron must hope for a turn up, I don't think Brown will oblige.

(Are you the same Andrew Lilico that accused John Howard the Australian PM of being a dictator over threatening to removing Aussie passports so that they could not be forced to go and play cricket in Zimbabwe for the amusement of Mugabe?)

[Sean Fear]

A "core vote" strategy won't work, but nor will a "drive away the core vote" strategy either.

[David Sergeant]

Portillo's article seems to make two important points.

Recent opinion poll problems have come about because of the grammar school spat. Voters were not all that bothered with what Willetts said but they became bothered with the row. When people started supporting Brady and when Blair and Brown were allowed to get away with jibes (there was no U turn) voters saw the Tory party they hated, disloyal, self serving, politically incompetant. It wasn't just the way the Telegraph backed up the "revolt" it was the fact that it was prepared to lie to undermine Cameron that showed people that the Tories are unlikeable. Perhaps after the next election when the A listers get in things will change.

The other point Portillo makes, without knowing, is that a lot of "right wingers", keen supporters of Maggie, such as Portillo, are inadequate little people looking for a strong leader to follow and will panic at the least problem. You can see that in right wing journalists going on about Brown being formidable. For example, the centrepiece of Brown's budget was doubleing the tax on the lower paid to finance a gimmick to "shoot a Tory fox". Rightwing jounalists, and Tory MPs, were not outraged as any reasonable person should be; they became frightened at what someone prepared to sink to those depths could do. They even stuck to this view as it became clear Brown's budget had bombed, funny how memories of Labour are so short but so long about the Tories. So when Brown shambolically messes up his overtures to the Lib/Dems, they have to look for some deep strategic reason instead of recognising Brown is a prat.

[Andrew Lilico]

Call my characterization of a core vote strategy facetious or puerile as you will, but I put it to you that though certainly a caricature, that sort of image is how we came across to the public at the last two elections with our core vote strategies. And it's how we would come across again if we pursued a core vote strategy again.

As with many contributors to this site, I have my own suggestions for how Cameron's approach might be fined-tuned. But I'm with him (and with Portillo) 100% in believing that we mustn't become diverted back into shoring up our core vote. That way lies oblivion.

[Observer]

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/turnout.htm

Conservative 1992 14,093,007 Votes
1997 9,600,943
2001 8,357,615
2005 8,772,598

Somewhere 5,320,409 Conservative voters went walkabout and never returned after voting for John Major in 1992

The overall drop in those voting was 6,403,347 and from an electorate that had increased by c. 950,000 since 1992.

[Ismail]

Portillo is irrelevant, as far as I can see. A typical BBC and Independent favourite liberal Tory, who did absolutely nothing for the constituences he represented. Good riddance to old rubbish.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Call my characterization of a core vote strategy facetious or puerile as you will, but I put it to you that though certainly a caricature, that sort of image is how we came across to the public at the last two elections with our core vote strategies. And it's how we would come across again if we pursued a core vote strategy again".
Andrew @ 1708

Andrew, the Tories have always liked to kid themselves as to why they lost an election. I remember Heath and the Tories not believing that he lost because he sacked Enoch Powell after Enoch advised the electorate to vote Labour (in the Midlands they took his advice) in a mistaken (as it proved) belief that Labour would deal with immigration. Powell was called,wrongly, called a racist.
I next seem to remember Maggie drawing attention to the immigration problem before she was elected, although, of course this was not her sole reason or policy for winning her election.
You and the Tories are kidding yourselves as to why you lost the last elections. You didn't lose because you mentioned the EU and immigration. You are not trying to tell me that the wet Major ("I want to be in the heart of Europe") and if he had his way we would have been in the euro, was a Right- winger, are you?.
Never! You lost (I am a conservative or was, but I could not bring myself to vote for him - I don't vote Labour) because of the ERM fiasco, Maastricht Treaty (no referendum), sleaze, negotiating with IRA terrorist when it was said he wasn't and weak on crime until Howard belatedly arrived to plug the drift.
By 1997 we had had enough of the Tories unless you would vote for a donkey wearing a blue rosette (apologies to donkeys).
It was Blair in 1997 who was going to save the £ (but only till after the election if he had his way) not the Tories, but you want to kid yourselves it was because you were seen as Right wing - instead you were seen as a bunch of drips.
Since 1997 Blair was seen as the golden boy and until 2 years ago after continuous negative reporting by the BBC and the majority of the media regarding Iraq he commenced to fall from grace. Nevertheless he still whipped the Tories in the last election with the help of the constituency boundaries and the socialist ethos of the majority of Scots.
Now consider this: Howard, whom I assume you would refer to as being a core vote attracting Tory - a loser, which in essence he was, actually had more votes in England than any other party - the votes were starting to increase.
The lesson to be drawn from this is that Scotland will continue to be a Tory graveyard. It is only the English, and by paying attention to the English concerns and wishes, will Cameron (unless he is lucky) get back into power, but the North of England do not like wet drips (ask Major) and Brown ain't no fool and knows how to buy a vote or two
At this moment in time I see little point in voting Tory for more of the same - but who knows what the future will bring

[Yet Another Anon]

Howard, whom I assume you would refer to as being a core vote attracting Tory - a loser, which in essence he was, actually had more votes in England than any other party - the votes were starting to increase.
The lesson to be drawn from this is that Scotland will continue to be a Tory graveyard.
The percentage Conservative vote actually revived slightly in Scotland in 2001 whereas it slipped back in England. In 2005 the Conservative Party had only slightly more votes than Labour in England - at 34.2% of a very low turnout it was still one of the lowest Conservative votes in England in history, rather than the Conservatives doing well in England, it was a case of Labour doing very badly but being saved by a weak opposition.

Somewhere 5,320,409 Conservative voters went walkabout and never returned after voting for John Major in 1992
Some will have died, don't forget though that even Labour in 1983 got votes from people who voted Labour for the first time who either had not been eligible previously or had switched from another party - the actual composition of the vote changes at every elec tion and so it could even be close to half those who voted Conservative in 1992 who didn't vote for them again, some may have voted Conservative at some of the subsequent elections and not others and people who had never voted Conservative will since have voted Conservative for the first time!

[MartinW]

Undermining and resentful? The heir to Ted Heath, perhaps.

[Tory T]

I agree utterly with David Sergeant's post (and I hold Portillo, and the bulk of this article, in the contempt both deserve)

[Christina]

Reality check @ 11:44

"Christina wrote "why should we hold one now, when the constitution/treaty/tidying-up- exercise cedes far fewer powers across to Brussels than Maastricht ever did?"

That is the nonsense spread by Blair (Dave's cronies/advisers Clarke, Patten and Heseltine) about the constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters.

The reality is that the proposed new treaty will cede around 52 new powers from Member States to Brussels, IN ADDITION to those ceded in the treaties of Masstrict, Amsterdam and Nice.

I can only assume that Christina is a Tory Reform Group.Mainstream harpie who is spreading the usual Europhile lies."

It's not wise to use the quote from Ken Clarke, quoted first by Don, then attribute it to me.

My surname isn't Speight, BTW Don, if that is what you were thinking.

Will Clarke be reprimanded in any way for what he said this morning?

Are the efforts of Hague and Cameron in calling for a referendum going to be undermined by Clarke? Why does someone like Brady get in trouble while Clarke does not, for effectively the same 'offence.'

Is there an unwriten rule in the Conservative Party that EU philes can say what they like without threats, but EU skeptics have to walk on eggshells?

It looks that way to me.

[Tapestry]

Europhile doubts grow about Constitution. My interpretation of the Observer today, www.the-tap.blogspot.com includes comments from Leon Brittan alleging that Blair's 'red lines' were focused on protecting Rupert Murdoch's interests and not Britain's.

No wonder Portillo is put up by Murdoch to protect the Constitution from attack from the Conservative Party.

[John Coles]

Tapestry, I found your post at 1135 very encouraging. You observed that Ken Clarke deserves a "damn good thrashing". My horse whip is ready - where shall we meet to deal with the bounder?

[Philip]

I don’t agree with Andrew Lilico (1417), that the reaction against Portillo is a result of resentment about his past actions, and that he is “just a journalist”. I thought the reaction is due to his behaviour now, which seems like putting the knife in and undermining the leadership (yes, seems just like his past behaviour against previous leaders). As for being “just a journalist”, the problem is that he is seen as more than that, i.e. as a ‘big beast’ whose opinions are sought. Although of course I do not see why such importance should be given to his views as representing anything like those of mainstream Conservative opinion.

I tend to agree with Dontmakemelaugh’s response (1603) to Andrew Lilico, (except his Point 6 – I think that even if man’s contribution to global warming is small, we need to take be environmentally responsible, and I don’t follow your immigration argument in 3). As regards the EU, perhaps we need some good leadership, which DC must be capable of, to convince voters of the importance of this issue, and to the need to regain our sovereignty as a free nation.

[Downsize the NHS]

Portillo is right - 100%

A pity we didnt elect him leader.

[Jarod Weaver]

Portillo is a charlatan, always has been, always will be. Stop talking about him, it's a waste of time.

[Fred Baker]

Those MPs (50) who declared their support for Portillo ahead of the final knockout round included: Michael Portillo, Peter Ainsworth, Gregory Barker, John Bercow, John Butterfill, David Cameron, Stephen Dorrell, Alan Duncan, Nigel Evans, Michael Fabricant, Mark Field, David Heathcoat-Amory, Howard Flight, Adrian Flook, Dr Liam Fox, Edward Garnier, Nick Gibb, Cheryl Gillan, Chris Grayling, Damian Green, Philip Hammond, Nick Hawkins, Mark Hoban, Robert Key, Julie Kirkbride, David Lidington, Peter Lilley, Tim Loughton, Andrew Mackay, Francis Maude, Theresa May, Andrew Murrison, Archie Norman, George Osborne, Richard Ottaway, Mark Prisk, Andrew Robathan, Hugh Robertson, David Ruffley, Keith Simpson, Nicholas Soames, Richard Spring, Gary Streeter, Hugo Swire, Robert Syms, Nigel Waterson, John Wilkinson, David Willetts, Tim Yeo.

Some of these do not a have very good judgement, and went on remove IDS.

Fred

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"I tend to agree with Dontmakemelaugh’s response (1603) to Andrew Lilico, (except his Point 6 – I think that even if man’s contribution to global warming is small, we need to take be environmentally responsible, and I don’t follow your immigration argument in 3). As regards the EU, perhaps we need some good leadership, which DC must be capable of, to convince voters of the importance of this issue, and to the need to regain our sovereignty as a free nation".

Posted by: Philip | June 24, 2007 at 21:48

Phillip: There are many scientists who believe that the UN's IPCC findings on climate change are based on faulty science
(one expert resigned from the IPCC in protest - read the reports in Melanie Phillips Diary). These "climate change deniers" are not allowed a word in edgeways. The BBC has convinced itself that man is causing untold harm to the planet and is obsessed with daily scaring the life out of the public. Gore the Bore is a losing politician - need I say more.

GWB has the right approach in stating that technology will solve the problem- if there is one and if we can do so - and not the anti-American hypocritical condemnation by the EU which seems to believe that we should savagely tax and curtail our economies (not that the EU countries will, the probable only exception being Britain). The global warming scam is a big earner for some - they love it and can't get enough of it. The BBC as usual is following the EU line.
I have no intention of voting for Cameron in order to unnecessary penalise the poorer section of the travelling public or British industry. But continuing to alarm us by the use of dodgy science and appealing for the Green/Liberal vote is the name of the game.

[Tapestry]

John Coles - I believe he hides away in the southern suburbs of Nottingham. But you could wait for him to come back to school in Westminster, and call him to the Whip's Office.

[Michael McGowan]

Portillo is the opportunist par excellence but continues to have influence because he is close to many of the modernisers. As Sean succinctly indicates, they have long had a strategy of actively driving away the core vote.....a strategy which, in the words of the current leader of the Tory Party, is "delusional". The clever thing to do is to enthuse your core vote and win new converts.....something the Tories have totally failed to do since 1992.

[Simon Denis]

The missing keystone in the arch of Mr Portillo's analysis is the acceptance of defeat. Basically, the tory party won its twentieth century victories by politically sheltering the homeless liberals. It was in essence an anti-socialist coalition. A number of the conditions which underpinned this arrangement have changed. First, the labour party is insufficiently socialist to frighten the liberal vote towards toryism. Second, the issue of Europe splintered the old tory-liberal compromise. Hard on the heels of Europe are cultural matters, such as clause 28, which divide a right wing liberal from a die hard conservative. There is small hope of binding this alliance again unless the disasters for which our current regime is responsible are properly highlighted. Here, the problem is our left leaning arts and media establishment which has given Blair carte blanche to make as many mistakes as he likes - apart, that is, from Iraq. Imagine the effect on Labour if the BBC had treated the high incidence of MRSA in hospitals with the same venom which it has brought to questions of foreign policy.

I differ from Mr Portillo in thinking that the old Liberal and Tory show can get back on the road but only, alas, when reality is snapping at the heels of the well heeled. It will take patience and mutual forbearance from anyone on the anti-socialist side.

[Watervole]

The point is: "do we want to be electable?"

First, though Portillo asked the elephant in the room question, he also provided a solution: for Cameron to stand up and convince everyone he IS as big a beast as Brown by demanding support from the party. Time to get the whips out!

Second, the party has precious little time to decide what it wants to do. Do we really want to be electable? If so, we all have to fall in behind the leader. If we cannot do that, it doesn't matter who we elect as leader, it will always fail.

If Cameron clearly isn't stacking up against Brown, with the party conference looming, there is little time to pursue options. Cameron's presentation has relied heavily on PR. The difficulty here is that man cannot live by PR alone and beating Brown will demand real mettle. The situation is complicated by the quality of the PR advice Cameron is getting. Clearly there have been recent gaffes - hence the bad poll news - but there are also fundamental problems with our campaign strategy.

Brown has clearly identified that he is going after a local agenda to win seats. So what are CCHQ doing? Cutting agents and not putting precious resource where it is needed, in the marginal seats.

Someone has got our campaign strategy badly wrong. Our problems go well beyond just whether David Cameron is performing or not. We are disunited and disorganised and what Portillo has done is to give us a wake up call. It remains to be seen whether anyone sits up and takes notice.

Brown is a bruiser. Cameron has to be able to trade punches. If he can't then we stand no chance of winning the next election and after that, you can forget it, as Brown will have mangled the consitution and turned it to his favour.

Portillo has identified the unspeakable - have we yet again elected the wrong leader? Cameron either needs to convince us that we haven't, or allow us to get a big beast quickly into the fray. A tactful and speedy way of doing this might be to hand over to the Deputy Leader. Or to one of the big beasts on the back benches who are terribly underutilised.

Whether you like Portillo or not, he is extremely well informed and clearly still talks extensively within the highest levels of the party, so whatever he pronounces is both accurate, insightful and comes with someone's blessing. Putting aside Portillo's own disappointment with the past and current performance of the party, you have to ask, who or what else has prompted him to write this piece? There are rumblings, particularly in respect of PR-dom, and he would appear to be voicing the concerns of others who are concerned with winning the next election. As we all should be.

[Tapestry]

When facing a bully, it is usually best to let the bully make all the moves and try to absorb the aggression. The bully feels really good exercising power over others, and gets a feeling of elation at the lack of effective response from the victims (us! but also his own party which is seething). The tendency is then to overreach and go one or two stages too far, exposing themselves to vulnerability.

This basic approach requires the bully to believe that no response will be coming so they lower their guard, in celebration. Let him think you are weaker than you are. The bully's moves then, which might have been made in secret to begin with, start to become visible to others, and sympathy swings to the victim.

When you hit back, you go with all your ammunition and attack on all fronts, shocking and humiliating the aggressor. The essence is not to respond at all to begin with, and wait while the attacker gets over-extended,and you can acquire some targets.

Brown is a machine politician. He fails to build strong relationships, and leaves too many victims. It's just a case of time. All the media he's getting is only making him feel more and more invulnerable. That's where he will start to make his mistakes - if he hasn't already.

[Oberon Houston]

Well it was an interesting article, and some of the comments shouldn't surprise us that much. His hostility and suspicion of the right are consistently played out here. And as a few of you have pointed out, he can say what he likes as his career is in journalism now not politics.

I was however surprised by his lack of faith in Cameron's strategy, and put this to him and I'm sure he won't mind me posting here his reply to that point...

"My article was intended to boost his determination.

So there we go. Interesting times though.

[Voice of Sanity]

You have a hotline to Portillo? Don't make me laugh.

People like you, together with Cameron, are already prisoners of the xenophobic far right of the Tory Party.

They're back on their favourite subject attacking Europe like some mangy old dog gnawing the same old bone.

If you're a moderate why don't you denounce the extremists in your party?

Gutless!!

[Christina]

Portillo's email address is at the bottom of his article. Anyone can contact him.

[Voice of Sanity]

Would any normal person want to?

We all remember when Portaloo exposed himself in his true Thatcherite colours long before posing as a moderate purely for advantage.

We all know what he's really like and it isnt pretty.