The campaign to stop David Davis is underway. Columnist Bruce Anderson is leading the charge. He began the attack in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph. In a bad case of editing he referred twice to the plotters and conspirators, undermining Michael Howard, as “friends of David Davis”. But it was in this morning’s Independent that Mr Anderson really let rip:
”Some of those touted as candidates for the Tory leadership are young and untested. George Osborne, David Cameron; both are under 40; and just completing their fourth year as an MP. Yet in their brief innings, they have shown class and style. Their performance at the wicket makes the selectors stroke their chins: ‘If they’re good enough, they must be old enough’.
David Davis is old enough: 56 and an MP for 18 years. But in all those 18 years, there has been no indication that he is good enough. He has never said, written or done anything to suggest that he is anywhere near prime ministerial calibre.”
He attempts to demolish Mr Davis’ CV in his article:
> He attacks his speaking style – “at the Despatch Box, he sounded like a freshly captured slave who had just been chosen to become a castrato”.
> He describes him as self-obsessed when a Foreign Office Minister and relates a tale when he awoke his jet-lagged Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, with a “rambling tale” about a newspaper article that had been critical of him. [What Mr Anderson doesn’t say is who recounted this story of Sir Malcolm and Mr Davis’ conversation…]
> David Davis is accused of shunning William Hague for reasons of jealousy.
> His ability to win the support of fewer than 20 MPs for his 2001 leadership bid is put down to his unpopularity within the parliamentary party.
> What Mr Davis did as IDS’ Party Chairman is described as “one of the great mysteries in modern British politics”. Mr Anderson suggests that he showed almost no signs of activity and “Tories in the country waited in vain for visits from their Chairman”.
> He is surrounded by an “unsatisfactory bunch” of Tory MPs – Eric Forth and Derek Conway are mentioned by name – who are already over-promising jobs to people: “Unless a Davis team found room for six shadow chancellors and six shadow foreign secretaries, the promises made on Mr Davis’ behalf could never be kept.”
Opponents of David Davis know that support for the Shadow Home Secretary is much weaker in the parliamentary party than amongst the rank-and-file membership. If they succeed in the restoration of the parliamentary party’s supremacy over the leadership election they still think that David Davis can be stopped. Two MPs have told this blog that a grand anti-Davis coalition involving some sort of Clarke-Cameron-Rifkind ticket may be engineered.
"Two MPs have told this blog that a grand anti-Davis coalition involving some sort of Clarke-Cameron-Rifkind ticket may be engineered."
Yes, let's become europhile and mimic New Labour just as both projects start to fall apart!
Talk of Clarke is just idiocy. He was disaster everywhere he worked before the Treasury. His tobacco dealings are just waiting to be dragged out by the media. And he's deeply out of touch with his own party.
His leadership would be the best way to splinter the centre-right vote forover. No wonder the BBC are so keen on him.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 30 May 2005 at 17:12
The real 'problem' with the party is that they have a heck of a lot of raw talent on the parliamentary benches: some young, rising stars; some intelligent thinkers, some mature and capable performers. But nobody stands out as a great leader with all of the qualities needed.
I feel that David Davis doesn't have the charisma and power to do a good job, although he has his qualities. Clarke is an old man and I can not understand the love for him. He always comes across to me as a bumbling toff. Just because he's liberal doesn't mean he's good! Cameron is a younger toff. Rifkind looks like and therefore would probably be a lot like Michael Howard.
There is a lot of raw talent from all wings and with all the qualities, but no potential leader. I can't decide who to support yet, but leadership elections should be about unity, not division. The longer this pre-match tension rises, the worse off the Conservative Party will become.
Posted by: Mark O'Brien | 30 May 2005 at 23:02
Mark,
Let me help you make your choice...
Work out what basic conservatism actually is, its view on people, society and the various institutions.
Examine the consequences of such a philosophy and recognise the basic policy types that it will entail.
Then decide whether the Conservative Party is even the Party for you. It certainly isn't the Party for the likes of Ken Clarke.
If you find that, happily, you are a (small 'c') conservative then you might be looking towards David Davis. Otherwise you're possibly looking to support non-conservatives.
AB
Posted by: Albion Blogger | 31 May 2005 at 12:39
Being a Europhile does not prevent you from being a conservative, because Europe is not a major issue.
What defines you political allegiance is your stance on the economy, social issues etc. Not foreign affairs.
Posted by: Edward | 31 May 2005 at 13:21
Edward,
With respect, the EU is not foreign affairs. It is very much a domestic issue as it is a construct that directly affects the way we live - particularly in the areas that you quote as being important to a conservative.
Further, full engagement with the EU as it stands involves allowing that body complete control over certain areas of legislation. In the future, full engagement would seem to signify the transfer of all our legislative powers to Brussels. The EU could not be more of a domestic matter if it tried. And it is a very, very big issue to those of us who consider national sovereignty to be an essential part of our political life.
AB
Posted by: Albion Blogger | 31 May 2005 at 14:14
"Being a Europhile does not prevent you from being a conservative, because Europe is not a major issue."
I think it's hard to reconcile big govenment statism with Conservatism. It's even harder to reconcile the contempt for our country's institutions that subservience to the EU project shows.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 31 May 2005 at 15:12
I define major issues as ones that people vote for rather than ones that have key ideological resonance.
The NHS is Europe's biggest employer, and that is nothing to do with EU statism. Ultimately our ability to provide top notch public services is dependent on how we spend our tax revenues and whether or not we reform the NHS etc, not the role of the EU.
My problem with the EU is that I don't think British governments have made the most of it, by fuller participation and better alliances with other free market orientated states in the east Britain can get a much better deal from the EU especially if market liberalisation can be pushed through.
Euroscepticism is not a vote shifting issue and so its not one that an opposition party should concern itself with. The job for the next 4 years is to hit the government where it is strongest, the economy (because that is also where it is vulnerable).
Posted by: Edward | 01 June 2005 at 13:48
The question those who support David Davis need to ask themselves is why are there so many at the top of the party who are prepared to apparantly do virtually anything to try and stop Davis becoming leader. These people know the man better than we ordinary guys do. Do they know something we don`t about the man`s character!
Posted by: Jack Stone | 02 June 2005 at 15:58
Perhaps they're jealous? I haven't made up my mind who to support, but simply saying someone shouldn't become Leader because of hostility from their colleagues is silly.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 02 June 2005 at 16:05
Isn't the point that, if we need a leader who can inspire and unify, it becomes relevant if a candidate polarises his colleagues into those wildly for and those wildly against?
Posted by: Simon C | 02 June 2005 at 16:50
"If they succeed in the restoration of the parliamentary party’s supremacy over the leadership election they still think that David Davis can be stopped."
And then what? Hope the party members they've just disenfranchised will keep passively turning over their dues and pounding the pavement for them? Any leader more Europhile than Howard is will drive people to UKIP, and rightly so. A Clarke leadership--which I think is impossible, but I mention for the sake of argument--would so split the party that it would effectively cease to exist. And why would the MP's be SO stupid as to do this when opportunity is finally starting to present itself again?
Posted by: Dave J | 03 June 2005 at 02:06
"The Telegraph
26 July 2004:
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, has come close to being sacked by Mr Howard for failing to show up earlier this week in order to respond to David Blunkett's five-year plan on crime.
26 June 2004:
Some members of the shadow cabinet, especially David Davis, the shadow home secretary, are also perceived within Tory circles as operating below par. One source said: "When you consider how hard Michael Howard, a 62-year-old man, is working, I think it's pretty poor some of the shadow cabinet don't try harder."
The Sun
25 October 2004
Where was Dozy Davis? MPs scoff at Tory as he misses vital debate on asylum
Stayaway top Tory David Davis blundered again yesterday - by missing a crunch Commons showdown on asylum.
The Shadow Home Secretary turned up almost an hour late for a key debate on plans to surrender Britain's control over immigration to Eurocrats.
Mr Davis should have had ministers on the rack ovver their failure to stand up to the latest Brussels power grab. But he left the debate to an inexperienced junior spokesman who failed to deliver any killer blows.
It was the latest in a string of gaffs by Mr Davis."
I do not understand why this guy is even in the running for leadership!
Bring back IDS - We can all get odds of 500 to 1 if we time it right!
Posted by: Sally Rideout Baker | 12 August 2005 at 20:06
Sally- you seem to have a remarkable archive at your fingertips, but all these stories really prove is that certain MPs have been very active over the years in trying to smear Davis.
I think the whispers about "operating below par", "missing a crunch Commons showdown", and failing "to deliver any killer blows", must have ignored the fact that he was the ONLY shadow cabinet member to cause the government any real trouble during Howard's time. It was his determination and grit that forced both Blunkett and Hughes to resign.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 13 August 2005 at 19:07