Quentin Davies MP defects to Labour!

In a letter to David Cameron today he said: "Under your leadership the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything.  It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda."

Davies has been Conservative MP for Grantham and Stamford for 20 years. Defecting from his party is a massive step.

As a europhile Davies strongly opposed leaving the EPP and, as he wrote on ConservativeHome two weeks, recently went against the Party line in voting against an inquiry into Iraq.

Deputy Editor

3.25pm update: FULL TEXT OF DAVIES' LETTER TO MR CAMERON

"I have been a member of the Conservative Party for over 30 years, and have served for 20 years in the Parliamentary Party, in a variety of backbench and front bench roles.

This has usually been a great pleasure, and always a great privilege.  It is therefore with much sadness that I write you this letter. But you are entitled to know the truth.

Under your leadership the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything.

It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda.

For the first 19 years of my time in the House, in common I imagine with the great majority of my colleagues, it never occurred to me to leave the party, whatever its current vicissitudes.

Ties of familiarity, of friendship, and above all of commitment to constituency supporters are for all of us very strong and incredibly difficult to break.

But they cannot be the basis for living a lie - for continuing in an organisation when one no longer has respect for its leadership or understanding of its aims.

I have come to that appreciation slowly and painfully and as a result of many things, some of which are set out below.

The first horrible realisation that I might not be able to continue came last year. My initial reaction was to suppress it.

You had come to office as leader of the party committed to break a solemn agreement we had with the European People's Party to sit with them in the EPP-ED Group during the currency of this European Parliament.

For seven months you vacillated, and during that time we had several conversations.

It was quite clear to me that you had no qualms in principle about tearing up this agreement, and that it was only the balance of prevailing political pressures which led you ultimately to stop short of doing so (though since then you have hardly acted in good faith in continuing with the agreement, for example you never attend the EPP-ED Summits claiming that you are "too busy" - even though half a dozen or more Prime Ministers are always present.)

Of course I knew that you had put yourself in a position such that if you did not leave the EPP-ED Group you would be breaking other promises you had given to colleagues, and on which many of them had counted in voting for you at the leadership election.

But that I fear only made the position worse. The trouble with trying to face both ways is that you are likely to lose everybody's confidence.

Aside from the rather significant issues of principle involved, you have of course paid a practical price for your easy promises.

You are the first leader of the Conservative Party who (for different reasons) will not be received either by the President of the United States, or by the Chancellor of Germany (up to, and very much including, Iain Duncan Smith every one of your predecessors was most welcome both in the White House and in all the chancelleries of Europe).

It is fair to say that you have so far made a shambles of  your foreign policy, and that would be a great handicap to you - and, more seriously, to the country - if you ever came to power.

I have never done business with people who deliberately break contracts, and I knew last year that if you left the EPP-ED Group I could no longer remain in a party under your leadership.

In fact you held back and I tried to put this ugly incident out of my mind and carry on.

But the last year has been a series of shocks and disappointments. You have displayed to the full both the vacuity and the cynicism of your favourite slogan 'change to win'.

One day in January, I think a Wednesday or Thursday, you and George Osborne discovered that Gordon Brown was to make a speech on the environment the following Monday.

You wished to pre-empt him. So without any consultation with anyone - experts, think tanks, the industry, even the Shadow Cabinet - you announced an airline or flight tax which as you have subsequently heard from me in a long paper (which has never been refuted) and I am sure from many others, is certainly defective and contradictory - and in my view complete nonsense.

The PR pressures had overridden any considerations of economic rationality or national interest, or even what would have been to others normal businesslike prudence.

Equally it seems that your hasty rejection of nuclear energy as a 'last resort' was also driven by your PR imperatives rather than by other considerations. Many colleagues hope that that will be the subject of your next u-turn.

You regularly (I think on a pre-arranged PR grid or timetable) make apparent policy statements which are then revealed to have no intended content at all. They appear to be made merely to strike a pose, to contribute to an image.

You thus sometimes treat important subjects with the utmost frivolity.  Examples are 'inequality' (the 'Polly Toynbee' moment - again you had a paper from me!), marriage and the tax system (even your own Party Chairman was unable to explain on the BBC what you really meant) and, most recently, mass consultation of the public on policy decisions. (In view of your complete failure to consult with anyone, within the Party or outside it, on many of the matters I have touched on, or on many others, the latter was perhaps intended as a joke).

Of course I could go on - up to three weeks ago when you were prepared to stoop to putting forward a resolution on Iraq (demanding an inquiry while our military involvement continues) which it was admitted at a Party meeting the following Monday (by George Osborne in your presence) was motivated by party political considerations. That was a particularly bad moment.

Believe it or not I have no personal animus against you. You have always been perfectly courteous in our dealings. You are intelligent and charming.

As you know, however, I never supported you for the leadership of the Party - even when, after my preferred candidate Ken Clarke had been defeated in the first round, it was blindingly obvious that you were going to win.

Nor, for the same reasons, have I ever sought office in your shadow administration.

Although you have many positive qualities you have three, superficiality, unreliability and an apparent lack of any clear convictions, which in my view ought to exclude you from the position of national leadership to which you aspire and which it is the presumed purpose of the Conservative Party to achieve.

Believing that as I do, I clearly cannot honestly remain in the Party.  I do not intend to leave public life. On the contrary I am looking forward to joining another party with which I have found increasingly I am naturally in agreement and which has just acquired a leader I have always greatly admired, who I believe is entirely straightforward, and who has a towering record, and a clear vision for the future of our country which I fully share.

Because my constituents, to whose interests of course I remain devoted, are entitled to know the full background, I am releasing this letter to the press."

Comments

[Ashton]

This just means we are losing those that don't care about the party and are not truly Conservative.

Those that will remain are those who put our country and our party first, whether they agree or disagree with DC. Until the battle lines are drawn we will all work togethor to try and do what's best for our party, and then stand united behind the outcome. The Conservative Party is greater than any one leader, and Quentin Davies is clearly not worthy.

I suspect this will be the first of many. This will go on until Cameron steps down.

[Colin Debonham]

Fair points made by Quentin - if Cameron can no longer really enjoy the support from his own backbenches, how long can he really last in the job?

Davis, Fox or Clarke would probably have been better alternatives to Cameron.

[Edison Smith]

Did anyone see Alan Duncan interviewed on Channel 4 news?

Masterful performance, both dirtying Davies's name AND denigrating Brown.

Hope he gets a promotion in the reshuffle.

[Joseph]

Ashton, This just means we are losing those that don't care about the party and are not truly Conservative.

True but it also means that you are not attracting any other of the voters and I am sorry to disillusion your spirit but there are not enough of your "True Tories as you call them to form a credible government you simply would not win enough seats.
You need voters from all walks of life, all shades of opinion, voters not happy with their natural political party and floating voters in particular.

[Simon Denis]

Yes, Joseph, he stood on a tory manifesto. My point exactly. So what is he doing giving the authority of his victory to socialism? The party may be left of its 2005 self, but is labour under Brown seriously to the right of that? Just think before you write, will you? Heaven knows, I'm fairly right wing, but the sight of all these Cameron bashing obsessives clinging to Davies - Davies, the Europhil nincompoop - just because he has embarrassed the leader shows me just what a bone-headed, short term, cloudy minded bunch the tory right can be.

[Ashton]

To Joseph

Very true, we need to attract new voters in order to win power. Any Conservative who doesn't believe that is dillusional.

However, I don't think our target voter is "Quentin Davies man"

[Stewart]

Somehow I don't think his constituents will be quite as grateful to Davies as he seems to think for 'taking their interests into consideration'. Response to this is easy; Cameron has to wish him well, express his regret at his decision but emphasise that he only needs committed members in the party and that there is a wealth of new young talent out there ready to fight his seat. Then, when the time is right (When he is comfortable in whatever role, if any, he has in the labour party), release whatever dirt the party has on him.

[Rob P]

The mutual love-in between Quentin Davies and Gordon Brown is interesting, for it wasn't always so, as Hansard has recorded (sorry, this a long one but I think its worth it)

16 March 2005

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)

One thing can be said about the Budget with absolute certainty and conviction. It is not a prudent Budget, and it is not the work of a prudent man.

...

It was clear from the statistics given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition that this is not the first time that the Chancellor has been losing control.

...

Instead of reflecting, as a sober, responsible and prudent Chancellor would do, on the way in which these favourable outcomes have been achieved, on the risks attached to the policies that have been pursued, on the potential threats to those policies continuing to be successful and on whatever changes might be required—that is the sort of sensible and sophisticated discussion we ought to have in the House on these occasions—the Chancellor went in for an orgy of self-congratulation. I do not believe that people who do that can ever be described as prudent. They may or may not succeed in deceiving other people, but they are clearly running a considerable risk of deceiving themselves. Once someone has deceived himself into a state of complacency about the world, he is not prudent and responsible, and not a person to be entrusted with the management of anybody's finances, let alone the country's finances.

That was an unattractive and frankly problematic attitude adopted by the Chancellor. He is not a Chancellor who has not made any mistakes. One might have thought that, for a second's genuflection in the direction of modesty and humility, he might have referred to an absolutely devastating misjudgment and mistake—the destruction of our pensions system. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and many others have used similar words in different places, including in the media, when speaking about this matter. The words I will use are cautious, sober and not in any way exaggerated.

In 1997 we had a pensions system in this country, including very substantial defined benefit pension funds in the private and public sectors, that was the envy of the world. It was the envy of the whole of the European Union, except for the Netherlands, which had a similar system to ours and has managed to preserve it. In eight short years, the system has been completely destroyed

...

That has been destroyed by a devastating mistake. I do not suppose that the Chancellor wanted to destroy that. He was just incredibly imprudent. He thought that the rise in the stock market would go on for ever. He said at the time that he would get away with it because the stock market kept on rising. After about two weeks, he said that that rise had compensated for the damage that he had done by reducing the return to pension funds over that period.

What an extraordinarily incompetent thing to say. What an extraordinarily naive thing to think. What a desperately complacent attitude towards something that is fundamental to the sense of security and well-being of millions of families. The Chancellor needs to be on the Front Bench when someone talks about pensions and to tell the country himself what he really thinks about that now. Was it really so clever to introduce that pensions tax eight years ago? If not, I look forward to hearing an apology in the House. Nothing less will do.

...

As a result of that self-congratulation and complacency, the Chancellor is becoming so cut off that he is beginning to underestimate the intelligence of the electorate. When politicians underestimate the intelligence of the electorate in a democracy worthy of the name, something nasty happens to them. I trust and believe that something nasty will happen to the Chancellor in electoral terms before too long. He will have no one but himself to blame.

That may be why the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that "many campaigning pensioners would like to see the earnings link restored. . . it is not affordable and would not be well targeted. . . It is a wild and uncosted policy, so it is a dangerous intervention to support it." Those are the words of the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the pensions policy of his party. It is interesting to note that the shadow Chancellor says that he does not have a clue how it can be funded. The Conservative party should go back to the drawing board.

10 Dec 2003

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con):

The Chancellor congratulated himself this afternoon because, while the cost of pay-as-you-go national pension schemes on the continent have, in some cases, reached 15 per cent. of GDP, the equivalent figure here is 5 per cent. However, that 5 per cent. is another characteristically bogus Labour statistic, and the Chancellor must know—he certainly ought to—that it makes no provision at all for the cost of the pension credit, housing benefit and other benefits, the burden of which is growing a great deal, as more pensioners become increasingly dependent on means-tested benefits. Will he tell us what the real figure for the state's liability for pensions is? It certainly is not 5 per cent. Am I not right in thinking that it is about 10 per cent.?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, is totally wrong.

[Rob P]

Oh crikey, I knew I would come unstuck with my copying and pasting. The paragraph above beginning "That may be why the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions..." should not be there.

[Joseph]

Ashton, I do not think they are Cameroons either, people are simply not rushing to him. With the unpopularity of Nulabour over the last year he should be miles out in front, what is that telling you.

Simon, Mr Davis has given a full explanation of where he now stands, you like me just have to read it and then form your own conclusions, which are as valid as mine, all things being equal.

[Ashton]

Joseph, It's a marathon, not a sprint. People did not flock to NuLab on Black Wednesday. It was a steady decline. Labour were miles ahead in 1992, and look where that left them.

Furthermore to my first point, although there aren't enough True Tories voting to win the election, it is they who will be doing the hard graft to ensure that non-Tories do vote for us. When the call to battle comes, internal squabblings will be left aside and we will march as one

[Black Country Lad]

I agree with the many people who simply said 'A Tory MP has joined Labour' that is the fact and the headline ordinary voters will read. NOT GOOD. Here in the Black Country (The Million people who live next to Brum) Cameron had little or no effect in the four boroughs (2 tory controlled, 2 Labour) People here want lower taxes, tough on law and order, look after Britain ie put our health and education system first - quite simple.

[TomTom]

Joseph, It's a marathon, not a sprint

It's actually fell-running but Conservatives have no sense of direction

[Ted]

In Lincolnshire today most people will be concerned about floods not an MP ratting.

As for his comments not sure what he wrote and what Mr Brown's little helpers put in; a lot seems to fit well with the Brown plan of attack. The bits that seem his are all about the EPP, where he does a sub-Geoffrey Howe attack. Not good in the short term though it will be lost in the Blair/Brown changeover, longer term means one less dissenting voice on Europe so a more united party.

Good to see from his comments that Cameron was honest in his endeavours for an early exit from EPP, though I had always thought we should keep to our word as a Party and stick it out as David Davis proposed. Cameron's actions in not attending the EPP get together presumably confirmed to QD that Cameron was serious and in fact already considered himself separated from that grouping.

So as DC says I will watch Quentin Davies's career progress with interest (Labour MEP?).

[Joseph]

Ashton you certainly have given me the best laugh of the day bless you!
"Labour were miles ahead in 1992, and look where that left them"

Exactly, now you see what a big hurdle Mr Cameron has to jump and he cannot even take all his troops along with him as for...
"When the call to battle comes, internal squabblings will be left aside and we will march as one"
do you mean the same "March as one" as in the late Eric Forth's safe seat?

[Jarod Weaver]

What amazes me is that anyone could leave David Cameron's Tory party, in order to move to the left!

[Terry]

He's joining Labour to escape from focus groups, PR and spin. I don't believe it!!!
This tells us more about the character of Davies than the future prospects of the party. Keep your nerve; keep talking about the issues that affect the mass of the lectorate; don't become despondent.

[ArthurWaik]

According to the Guardian this was DC's reply to the letter:

"Your decision does not come as a surprise to me. I am sorry that you feel unable to be part of today's Conservative party and join us in campaigning on what matters to people."

He added: "We will watch your future career with interest."

...I particularly like that last line - polite yet straight for the jugular :-)

[el Tom]

"EVERYONE SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHAT THEY WRITE ON THIS THREAD. THE MEDIA WILL BE READING IT. EXTREME COMMENTS BY NAMES I DO NOT RECOGNISE WILL BE DELETED."

I see tory democracy has already made its reaction to this rat running...

[Tapestry]

Newsnight showed poor old Quentin Davies a bit out of his depth. Not able to express himself very well, or measure the questions.

Bit sad really. It was like a failed employee heading for the Employment Tribunal for a bit of revenge. He'd have done better to retire graciously. He'll be a sad lonely figure.

[Afleitch]

Alan Duncan floored him.

'They'll chew you up and spit you out within 6 months' They're using you.'

[86nr11]

I personally think it's disgraceful and utterly deceitful. How can Davies get elected upon one set of values and then completely change his mind during his elected mandate. Is there a petition to demand a by-election? Is pressure being placed upon Davies to call for a by-election?

An absolutely disgraceful action performed by an absolutely deceitful character.

[Brian Jenner]

I saw Alan Duncan on Channel 4 and he was just spiteful. If you're part of a happy ship, who cares if someone wants to defect? An organisation that is functioning effectively has self-confidence and direction. You can just be cool and pleasant about it. Cameron's barbed comment is equally misguided. It doesn't show graciousness or style. If you've got a 15 year plan about how you're going to regenerate the Conservative Party, this wouldn't even merit a response.

A divided house cannot stand - that's statement was made by a shrewd politician. Listening to Parliament yesterday, the Tories were saying one thing and Ken Clarke was saying another. Divorce is a wonderful thing when a family has been bickering for years.

My argument is that David Cameron has done nothing to really change the Conservative Party. He has not gone to war with the idle and incompentent constituency associations, he has not given notice to the many bedblockers at all levels and he has not appealed at every opportunity for new members. New Labour built a new political party on top of the old one with new personnel.

None of the Cameroons have any experience of raw political activism, they're all Mckinsey politicians, bright chaps who have never really had to question their beliefs and values. They have prospered within an extremely dysfunctional organisation, so how can they see the way to reform?

The message of Gould's Unfinished Revolution is that whatever the PR, whatever the advertising, the product must have INTEGRITY. You can walk into any constituency association in the land and see that the organisation is very sick. I really hoped David Cameron was going to ruthlessly remove the dead wood. I just don't think he has the vision to create a modern political organisation.

[EXTREME COMMENTER WITH A NAME TIM DOES NOT RECOGNISE]

19000 words posted so far on this thread alone!

[Traditional Tory]

I didn't see Duncan last night but if someone at CCHQ thought this sneering little creep with controversial Far Eastern interests was the right man to present the party's case against Quentin Davies the party has yet another serious problem.

Unlike myself Brian Jenner (June 27, 2007 at 00:29) is clearly from the 'One Nation' wing of the party, yet much of what he posts above I could have written word for word.

There's a simple reason for this.

It's no longer primarily a question of left v right. It's a matter of principle and integrity v the principle-free moral vacuum that now lies at the heart of the Conservative Party.

[Comstock]

"We do not vote for a party in general elections."

Technically, no. In practice, yes. I've already forgotton the name of the Labour guy I voted for only 6 weeks or so ago (he lost)

Most people vote for the party, which is why I am torn between joy at the Conservative party's woe and agreement with the 'resign and fight a by-election' lot.

[Rebecca B]

This is rapidly becoming old news. A few things to note in all the coverage:

Virtually no one vox popped knew who this guy is.

He is a man who's views are diametrically opposed to the party he has "defected" to

His timing could hardly be worse - the defection will be completely eclipsed by other things.

His judgment is pretty poor if he thinks that the person he thinks is a great chancellor is also the one who has led the greatest keynsian spending spree of our times.

IMHO he has been offered a minor cabinet post, which judging by his track record, he will make a hash of, he will fail to get a Labour seat anywhere and will be kicked up to the Lords to disappear into obscurity, loathed by all.

Rather sad really and a loss in numbers only to us.

The people I feel really sorry for are the people of his constituency who have been utterly betrayed by this man, who has no place serving the people of Grantham in Westminster.

[Tory T]

Alan Duncan destroyed Davies mercilessly last night. He was outstanding. On the less partisan PB.com the consensus was that Duncan handed Davies his lunch.

It was very amusing watching Davies gabble for England.

I also loved Paxman's introductory description of Brown snagging Davies "a bit like going fishing for a marlin and ending up with a pilchard" ha ha!

[Starving Sheep]

"Tapestry" responds to Davies' strong praise for Duncan Smith's warm EU relations by scoffing: "Yeah. IDS was best mates with Chirac, Schroeder, Berlusconi - and they all loved his vision of a Europe of free trading nations, and his rejection of the Euro in perpetuity".

In fact, Davies is sadly correct. IDS followed the well-travelled road, that of a Tory Leader reneging on initial pledges to leave the EPP, indeed he honed it to a degree that Cameron might wish to emulate. In doing so, he came to enjoy warm reputations with leading EPP lights. Berlusconi, definitely (or, at least, his private office). Chirac, no (sacre bleu!), but Michelle Alliot-Marie, then the French EPP leader, yes (or, at least, her private office). Schroeder, well, no, because he of course was a Social Democrat, but Edmund Stoiber, Merkel's predecessor as CSU-CDU chancellor-candidate, most certainly yes. And then-PM Aznar of Spain (or, at least, his private office).

The EU-Brigade were only to happy to indulge in their latest spineless poodle.

On the other hand, Davies isn't quite right about Bush. IDS made it to the White House, but I believe he had to make do with seeing Dick Cheney (or, at least, his butler). The Americans had him better sussed.

[Paul Holmes]

And there are now rumours that there is another defection on the way!!

[Richard Tyndall]

Comstock

more fool you then. That is not how the system works and anyone who blindly votes for their party rather than the merits of the individual candidate deserve to end up with a Blair's Babe ignoring their constituency whilst trying to vie for some minor post at Westminster.