The Davis-Willetts dream ticket?

Writing on the Social Affairs Unit blog - here, 'Watlington' recommends a Davis-Willetts dream ticket. Here are excerpts from Watlington's interesting post:

"Whilst much of the Tory tribe in the Westminster village is focusing on the Conservative leadership election, there is a far more interesting contest going on: those jockeying for a senior position in the Shadow Cabinet. So far around 10% of the Conservative Parliamentary Party has hinted that they would like to stand for leadership of the Conservative Party, but what these individuals are really standing for are the positions of Deputy Leader, Shadow Chancellor and Foreign Secretary....

Of all the leadership contestants, there is one person who fits this bill: David Willetts MP. David Willetts is one of the few people in the Conservative Party who is respected by right and left alike. Although described as "two brains" he is more than an intellectual because he is one of the few who is able to narrate a story about Conservatism, bringing together the threads of laissez faire and traditional Toryism. He understands that Conservatives need to reclaim the mantle of social justice from the left, thus preventing Labour from having the monopoly on compassion. He is also a very decent man. And therein lies the problem. Genuine decency does not often win leadership elections and if it does it means weak leadership. One who learnt that lesson all too well was Iain Duncan Smith. IDS's world was one in which every man's word is his bond. In the harshest way possible he was to find out that that world died a long time ago.

But, returning to David Willetts, he is one of the candidates for the new Shadow Cabinet to have real weight behind him. So far the talk is that he has the support of 20 MPs. He also has the backing from younger, more thoughtful Conservatives, many of whom know he won't make it as Leader but will provide intellectual ballast to a winning candidate. He has a number of other pluses too. Mr Willetts comes from a humble background and does not have the "I have a divine right to rule" attitude that afflicts so many of the Notting Hill set.

Enter David Davis. One of the few leadership candidates who is really standing for leader, he is said to have 80 MPs behind him. His strength lies in his personal story of aspiration and hard work and the fact that he was brought up in a South London council estate far away from the cosy confines of Notting Hill. But his critics slate his ruthlessness and lack of intellectual ballast. Does this matter? Not really. But just think how much better it would be if in a second round of a leadership contest, Mr Davis were able to bring David Willetts on board saying that Mr Willetts would be Deputy Leader and Shadow Chancellor in a Davis Shadow Cabinet. This would show the Parliamentary Party that Davis was being backed by someone who was thoughtful, nice and well respected. At a stroke, David Davis would be transformed into a leader who can attract the very brightest and very best. And it is most likely - because the kind of people who support Willetts (such as David Lidington MP) would do so out of admiration - that Willetts would be able to guarantee to bring his supporters over to Davis.

Of course, the Davis team might worry that Willetts might sneak through the middle and actually become leader, but given all the stop David Davis candidates, this is most implausible. Davis and Willetts would be a highly potent cocktail. Davis would supply the ruthlessness and ambition needed to be leader, whilst Mr Willetts would provide the intellectual framework and the story of compassionate conservatism for the next election. Bringing a thoughtful moderniser on board like Mr Willetts would show the Party that Davis can attract the centre ground (or common ground as he prefers to call it), without kow-towing to the Notting Hill set. There would be a real chance that we would have a Tory leadership based on merit and intellect rather than one based on privilege and patronage."

Comments

[D&D]

I have no qualms with david willets, and I belive it very important that Davis, the probable leader, should incorporate all the main party factions within his cabinet. As I view things Willets, Cameron and Clarke all need to be given prominent well suited positions.
P.S. Who else thought Davis gave a good performance in Parlaiment about the ID card bill?

[Wat Tyler]

My dream ticket has always been Davis and Cameron. But it looks like that isn't going to happen, and anyway my enthusiasm has already been dampened by DC's New Labour style managerialist outpourings on education.

Willetts on the other hand is a well established heavyweight- his recent speech to the SMF was outstanding, but really no more than we've come to expect.

Sadly (perhaps) for him, his lack of twinkle means he's just not leadership material. But Shadow Chancellor? The solid dependable guy you'd trust to sort out Gordo's ghastly inheritance? Much more convincing than poor old Ollie Letwin, and you find yourself asking why Howard didn't think of it.

So, heck yes: this sounds like a real runner.

[buxtehude]

I've already made my pitch for Willetts as running mate, commenting on one of these blogs. But Mr Tyler, I'm surprised at you: how could Cameron be part of any conceivable 'dream ticket'? Hearing you say that almost makes me want to re-think my support for DD.

[Alexander Drake]

Watlington's article is all very interesting and paints an interesting picture on how it would tie together different strands of the Party's intellectual thinking, but so what?

Isn't selecting a candidate that (a) is a plausible and appealing alternative prime minister, and (b) will fight effectively in marginal seats during an election campaign, more important?

I don't think the lay party should choose a candidate for the parliamentary leadership that suits itself - it should choose a candidate that will help it get our MPs over the line in a general election.

This is why I think the party organisation should choose a party chairman that will make the rank-and-file feel good, while the parliamentary party gets on with choosing a leader that will lead it to Government.

[buxtehude]

But the MPs are already elected! And only a small proportion are in truly marginal seats. By your argument, it's the constituency organisations, most of which do not have a representative in parliament, that would be most motivated to choose a vote-winner.

I think the rank-and-file want to 'feel good' by getting a Conservative government, not by having a chairman that speaks to (what are perceived as) their prejudices. I'm sure you don't mean it this way, Alexander, but your comment can be taken to be patronising and contemptuous of the party membership, as if they're just blinkered old fools who need the occasional sop, but no more.

If that IS one's view of the membership, then one might as well get rid of it altogether. Because to see it that way, and yet to expect it to raise money and deliver leaflets, would be disgraceful.

So why not just disband it and 'borrow' another twenty-six million from a few rich donors? Pay a direct market-agency to phone and deliver for you. And let the so-clever people in parliament get on with what they are already doing so successfully?

I find it quite strange that there is so little discussion about the role of the membership in modern politics. Have we really already given up on growing a mass party? If so, what does that mean for the future?

[Simon C]

Glad to see other bloggers are following our lead here at ConservativeHome - the potential significance of Willetts as a kingmaker was highlighted a few days ago under "David Davies is this weeks winner" in this blog.

Buxtehude is right to be worried about the party's attitude to mass membership. As to what it means for the future, see here for an article written in 1995 about what happens when the party allows its grass-roots to wither. 10 years on, we can see that the writer was right.

http://www.ccfwebsite.com/world_display.php?ID=65&type=article

[jacqueline schofield]

Dear David willet,

What is the object of the exercise? is it for Davis to become leader or is it for us to win?
And what difference does a background make,we want to win, we are fed up with this government, Davis is just a man, Cameron is a star, Please note this when you next cast your vote. We the tories out there want Cameron.