Summarising 'What David Cameron should do next'

If you haven't read the contributions to ConservativeHome's What David Cameron Should Do Next series you can click here to scroll through them all.  For those who do not have the time here is my quick summary of some of what was said:

More conservative balance in Project Cameron: Matthew Parris urged David Cameron not to be "spooked" by talk of an early General Election.  The Times' columnist encouraged the Conservative leader to cherry pick from the policy groups with "relaxed command" and identify at least one "distinctively and obviously Conservative policy".  Keep the "huggy, caring or green stuff", he wrote, but "no more pictures with poor people" - instead look increasingly prime ministerial by being photographed with "powerful people".

Stop the public strategising: Janet Daley's piece included advice repeated later by Nick Wood and John O'Sullivan.  Stop thinking, she wrote, about “what do we have to do to become popular again?” and ask “what does the country need?”  John O'Sullivan called for the public strategising to stop.  Nick Wood wrote: "Cameron must start to campaign for what is right and stop worrying about whether the BBC and The Guardian will judge it popular – a lot of the time they won’t."  'Umbrella man', under Janet's article, wrote: "Seek to serve the nation and the nation will entrust you with office. Seek office and the nation will not trust you."

The need for better party management: Fiona Melville and James Forsyth addressed the leadership-grassroots relationship.  Fiona suggested that the grassroots needed to convey the same modernising, optimistic message as the leadership.  Conveying optimism was also a theme of Danny Finkelstein's contribution.  Fiona wasn't afraid to criticise the central operation either and called for CCHQ to beef up its approach.  Spamming out daily press releases wasn't good enough, she said.  James critiqued the leader's approach to party management and regretted David Cameron's "bashing" of Ali Miraj, Stanley Kalms and Graham Brady during a recent Today programme interview.  "Understand," he wrote, "that not everyone who criticises [you] is a dinosaur or a glory hunter."  He might also have mentioned the attacks on the grassroots as "delusional" during grammarsgate.

Confronting Gordon Brown (or not): One of the more controversial suggestions came from Danny Finkelstein. Stop being oppositionalist, he wrote: "You can't influence people's view of Brown, just their view of you."  Ruth Lea and Nick Wood disagreed.  "Gordon Brown’s 10 years of damage to the economy’s underlying health needs to be robustly challenged," wrote Ruth.  Nick called for an agressive anti-Brown campaign "to run right through September – to demonstrate that nothing has changed".  Convince voters, he said, that the Government led by Brown is essentially the same as the one led by Blair that had come to be viewed with contempt.

Talk about Europe again: Ruth Lea, John O'Sullivan and particularly Alexander Deane all thought the party should talk a little more about Europe - and Brown's broken EU referendum pledge, in particular.  Alex called for a policy group to be established on Europe: "There should be no limits placed on its thinking.  If, contrary to experience thus far, our involvement with this domineering institution can be made to work to our advantage, good.  If not, we should be prepared to leave."  CCHQ Spy asked a good question in response to Alex's piece: 'Who would chair this policy group?': "Someone like John Gummer would send the sceptics mad. Someone like Bernard Jenkin would alarm the Clarkeites. Someone grey like John Maples would indicate that the report would be fudged." Personally I believe that crime and immigration are more potent issues at the moment than the other core vote issues of tax and Europe.

Stop appeasing the establishment: That was the key message of John O'Sullivan's piece. Margaret Thatcher's former special adviser wrote: "“Project Cameron” is rooted in the assumption that the current intellectual and cultural climate in Britain cannot be seriously challenged. It must therefore be appeased. But even if the Tories could be elected by appeasing a fundamentally inhospitable culture—which is doubtful—they would then have to steer by the same stars in government, probably onto the rocks. Once you accept that victory in the next election is unlikely, however, you can begin the long process of persuading the nation, including the media, that such values as patriotism, self-reliance, and enterprise—and such approaches as choice, competition, and diversity of provision in public services—are both admirable and sensible."  It is certainly Oliver Letwin's view that oppositions can't really change public attitudes.  Oliver may be right - I hope and believe not - but to embrace that view as a way of politics is tantamount to intellectual surrender.

I plan to make my own short contribution tomorrow morning.

Comments

[HF]

One thing DC must do is avoid PR gaffes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6956719.stm
"Obviously a mistake has been made and as a local MP I wasn't consulted on this and I apologise unreservedly to the staff of the hospital," he told the BBC.

Was it sloppy work by Andrew Lansley's team?

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

I'd like to suggest that he should resign, with immediate effect.

However, I can't see that happening within the next five years.

To be honest, it doesn't really matter what he does know - as the most serious and cardinal sin has already been committed: he has allowed himself to be pilloried and mocked to such an extent that he's not seen as a serious politician.

If he's not seen as serious, he'll not get the votes; no matter what policies he proposes.

[John Scott]

I can hardly believe the news breaking on the BBC, that the Party has named various hospitals earmarked for closure (at least one of which clearly is not). The Party seems neither to have checked its facts nor to have consulted the MPs locally or the Chief Executives of the hospitals concerned who may be negotiating with government behind the scenes and find this kind of campaign totally counterproductive.

I find it just so amateurish to be beyond words. It does so much damage locally.

[EML]

Resign? Oh my. Cameron should be party leader for the next eight years at least.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"Resign? Oh my. Cameron should be party leader for the next eight years at least."

Gordon Brown will be uttering "Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice" at the news.

[Effie]

I think Cameron should be put on a leash and not let out unless he has a sane minder with him.
What a fool he has made of himself AGAIN with this latest hospital debacle. No ammount of flanneling is going to get him out of it. The man is an accident waiting to happen.
Why is he paying Steve Hilton so much money as he is being so very badly advised?
If this is what an Eton education gives you for your money, I am glad I was educated at a common grammar school.

[Think about it]

BBC report on hospital closure mess-up: http://tinyurl.com/2lcp8z

Well, more embarrassment for the party caused by an amatuerish operation failing to check its facts.

It is essential to be 100% accurate as once someone has found one or two errors, no-one is going to believe the rest.

Come on, enough money is pouring into the party to avoid these kind of fark ups.

[malcolm]

It was a good idea Tim and now we have some idea what it is like to be a party leader being assailed by conflicting advice from good people.
As someone who is generally a supporter of DC I found myself most in sympathy with John O'sullivan strangely enough.I think is thoughts about strategising in public are right and giving Europe, Crime and Immigration thwe time they deserve.What we must not do is became obsessed as we have in the past with one or two subjects and talk about them to the exclusion of all else.

[Effie]

Was it sloppy work by Andrew Lansley's team?

Posted by: HF | August 21, 2007 at 12:39

No HF, it was classic Cameron.
I have nightmares and shudder to think that he just might get elected, but then I wake up and realise the British electorate are not that foolish.

[Think about it]

"What we must not do is became obsessed as we have in the past with one or two subjects and talk about them to the exclusion of all else"

Bullseye.

I bet when you finally find true policy balance, inscribed on the fulcrum will be the words 'And theory'

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"I have nightmares and shudder to think that he just might get elected, but then I wake up and realise the British electorate are not that foolish."

Oh yeah ?? They voted Bliar in three times in a row. Now it looks as if they're giving a vote of confidence in Brown - God help us !

Mind, with the quality of the opposition, I suppose they can't be blamed entirely.

[Yet Another Anon]

It is certainly Oliver Letwin's view that oppositions can't really change public attitudes. Oliver may be right - I hope and believe not - but to embrace that view as a way of politics is tantamount to intellectual surrender.
Labour somehow changed public attitudes in the years up to 1945 when they were mostly in opposition, although it was more through independent writers such as H.G. Wells and Joseph Priestley; people such as C.P. Snow undoubtedly had an impact on many people's thinking later on; Will Hutton's The State We're In seemed to help shift a lot of people towards being more favourable to Labour even among those who hadn't read it, it's hard to think of anything in association to David Cameron that has caught the imagination in a way that might alter opinion.

many movements have altered opinion - the Nazi's in Weimar Germany, the Bolsheviks in Russia, Mussolini in Italy, Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, Chairman Mao and his little red book, Voltaire many of whose ideas were adopted in the French Revolution, Popper & Hayek indeed swung some intellectual support in the UK, Anti-Communism in the US had a strong Republican dominated input and worked through the Actors Union and through Senate Committees. The Protestant Reformation was largely pushed forward in opposition to bitter repression in Catholic countries and altered ideas - Jan Hus, John Wycliffe, John Knox, Oliver Cromwell, John Calvin, Martin Luther, George Whitefield and John Wesley in their time all certainly changed ideas of society while being very much outside the establishment.

If the Conservative Party had something such as the Vorticist movement or Futurism which very much carried out political campaigning with cultural campaigning then if the population can be immersed in a whole new culture then they can be re-orientated to a new way of life. On the other hand simply dashing to be part of some kind of total consensus and offering a bit of tinkering about with the system certainly won't change ideas in society.

[Matt Wright]

Just on this point of can parties fundamentally change peoples views I must say I tend to agree that they generally can't. Certainly it is known by marketeers just how hard it is to do this and how expensive. However this point should not be misunderstood or taken as being defeatist. It is more the case that peoples views can be adapted (rather than changed outright) and it is easier to do this if you go with the grain in some way. Rather than swim against the tide its a case of harnesing and channeling the tide or tacking across the currents to get people to where they need to go. That is why we should not utterly dismiss focus groups are completely useless (Thatcher used them as well) but equally we should not blindly just follow their output. The key is to understand underlying trends and then look at how they can be adapted (again Thatcher did this brilliantly and had things like right to buy building on the urge for people to improve etc),

Matt

[Tony Makara]

I have really enjoyed reading the excellent articles and the highly divergent responses and counter responses. It is good to see such open and vigorous debate. This shows that the Conservative party has a broader range of opinion than any other party. Credit to the posters who argue with anger, passion and logic.

[Alistair]

I don't think my advice as to what Cameron should do next is fit to be printed.

Suffice it to say that the man is an overpromoted ass of the nth degree. If it had not been for his ultra-privileged background he would be peeling potatoes in the kitchen of some canteen.

But perhaps its as well be became leader of the Thatcherite Party.

With Cameron in charge this widely loathed party will once again crash to defeat which will be a very good thing for the people of Britain.

[TomTOm]

many movements have altered opinion - the Nazi's in Weimar Germany, the Bolsheviks in Russia,

They ALTERED no opinions....the Nazis simply picked up the monarchist vote from those angered at the SPD Republic - it was called the Weimar Republic because it had to abandon Berlin when Communists and Freikorps were fighting for control and a Communist insurgency captured towns like Dortmund in 1923

The Bolsheviks staged a coup d'etat in October 1917 AGAINST the Kerensky Government and then LOST the 1918 election so started a civil war to unleash the Cheka.

If that is "Altering" public opinion it makes one wonder why no further free elections were held until regime change

[Hacked Off Member of the Forces]

"One thing DC must do is avoid PR gaffes"
Posted by: HF | August 21, 2007 at 12:39

What you mean like the one he made yesterday in Gosport where he visited the Former Royal Naval Hospital? Peter Viggers is fighting a particularly difficult campaign to save it as a military hospital, Liam Fox had promised a review if ConParty are re-elected and Cameron says that wouldn't be a review, quantifying the statement with the troops don't want there own dedicated hospitals.

I can tell you that there isn't another country on this planet that doesn't give its armed forces a dedicated medical service with its own hospitals.

Peter Viggers was forced to say publicly that he supports DC in his decision, thus handing the Libs a massive stick to beat him with which will run in their literature for a long time and will allow the Labour party to say that there is no difference in the party views between them and Labour.

[Hacked Off Member of the Forces]

"One thing DC must do is avoid PR gaffes"
Posted by: HF | August 21, 2007 at 12:39

What you mean like the one he made yesterday in Gosport where he visited the Former Royal Naval Hospital? Peter Viggers is fighting a particularly difficult campaign to save it as a military hospital, Liam Fox had promised a review if ConParty are re-elected and Cameron says that wouldn't be a review, quantifying the statement with the troops don't want there own dedicated hospitals.

I can tell you that there isn't another country on this planet that doesn't give its armed forces a dedicated medical service with its own hospitals.

Peter Viggers was forced to say publicly that he supports DC in his decision, thus handing the Libs a massive stick to beat him with which will run in their literature for a long time and will allow the Labour party to say that there is no difference in the party views between them and Labour.

[TomTom]

the troops don't want there own dedicated hospitals.

Funny that...since Major closed down the military hospitals on the assumption that the NHS would give priority to military casualties in any conflict - it looks as if the civilians will have to be booted out of Selly Oak.

So what will the local MPs tell their voters when the wards are turned over to the military and the civilians are transported elsewhere ?