For Steve Richards, in today’s Independent, the question topping this post is the key question facing the Conservative Party. He attacks the “absurd” and “superficial” nature of the leadership debate up until now and its focus on appealing to gays or not wearing ties.
The task of challenging Mr Brown will be a daunting one. The Iraq factor – which damaged Labour’s standing amongst its most traditional voters - will be unwinding by the next election. And if the economy is weak it may actually play to Brown’s advantage. A YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Justice found strong support for Mr Brown being in charge of a troubled economy. Brown in 2009 could parallel Major in 1992. Voters may prefer Labour to revive the economy if they still enjoy a lead on economic competence (which is currently double figured).
Mr Richards argues that only two Tories are up to the job of challenging Mr Brown – Ken Clarke and David Davis. He says that Mr Clarke’s popularity with the electorate and Mr Davis’ frontrunner momentum make them the stand-out contenders.
David Cameron is rejected as untested in the heat of political battle – but his “time will come”.
Mr Richards is optimistic that the Tories can do well at the next election:
“They seek to flourish in a conservative country that has not been fundamentally changed by a Labour government. They do so with the potential support of powerful right-wing newspapers. This should make them optimistic.”
Nick Wood, former Tory Director of Media, is much less keen on Ken Clarke. Mr Wood thinks that the Tory contest will be a Davis v Cameron clash. On Clarke he writes:
“Clarke, or a leftish disciple such as Rifkind, may yet stand. But given that he is out of step with most of his party over tax and spending and public service reform, as well as Europe, and given that at 65 he is old enough to be Cameron’s father, he stands no chance of beating Davis.”
Read Nick’s full article on conservativehome.com.
So being the front runner makes Davis one of the best candidates? That's bizarrely circular logic even for The Independent. And I strongly dispute Ken Clarke's "popularity with the electorate;" unless of course "popularity" means more people know his name bacause he was Chancellor...
But nothing bemuses me more than the rise of David Cameron. I would have thought he's just the man we don't want fronting for the party. Putting aside for the moment the little matter that he appears without political conviction, there's the secondary fault that he's a hack. Has he ever had a proper job, or has he worked exclusively in the Westminster village, and won't this mean his empathy with the real world is skin deep?
Like many hacks, he appears to have no convictions. Unlike Nick Wood, I find this worrying for without a vision of a better Britain, there's no way someone could deliver that.
Cameron's major speech to date has seen him turn away from choice and embrace a managerial agenda. He really doesn't seem to understand that the structures, which he dismissed as secondary concerns, are the things you have to get right before you can deliver on dull platitudes about discipline.
State schools perform badly because they are state schools. Tinkering with them will not improve them - as the last 50 years show. But Cameron is clearly not the man to do anything about this, becuase he doesn't believe in choice.
I think the last election showed that a shallow, technocratic agenda was not the path back to to power. Indeed you can go further and say it makes gaining that power pointless, because we won't do anything with it that will improve our country.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 21 June 2005 at 09:19
Saw Cameron last night on Newsnight. He seemed just fine as a junior spokesman - but the idea that he can be leader and beat Gordon Brown is laughable. Cameron might be a fine man with a brilliant mind, yet to be revealed, but he self-evidently can't carry it off right now. Those who can watch his performances and think he can be PM in four years time really have no connection with normal life. Of course, these are the same people who think tie-wearing is a defining issue.
What worries me is that although we are having an ok debate about a lot of issues that matter (social justice, for example, is very important and is being addressed by most of the candidates to varying degrees) no-one has given us a sense that they have a real grasp of what to do next. We have the themes, but not even a rough sketch of a road-map.
I like DD best at the moment because of his 'story'; but its only a tentative preference. We can put up with mere mood-music a little longer, but the race will only have started properly when the contenders make decisive moves which the rest of us can either support or oppose. To be fair, maybe it's too early for that.
Posted by: buxtehude | 21 June 2005 at 09:42
"I like DD best at the moment because of his 'story'; but its only a tentative preference."
The problem of this phoney war, is that this is all we're getting. At the moment all there is to Davis is his background - appealing as it is. His pronouncments have given no real picture of what he believes or of the way ahead.
Similarly the other contenders have, at best, produced an article relevant to their brief or muttered some platitudes about "reaching out".
Perhaps they should set out their stalls before the media makes the decision about who the runners are.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 21 June 2005 at 09:53
I have a horrible feeling that I may be losing touch with reality myself, because I actually feel quite optimistic.
With DD at the helm, I think we can fairly quickly pull together all the various anguished debates and thinktank reports of the last few years into a coherent and powerful policy platform.
It's a platform of a smaller state that focusses its energies on helping those who can't help themselves, rather than a big state trying to live all of our lives for us. Thinktanks like Reform have already identified many of the policies (like school choice)that can give practical expression to this, and the work on localism carried out by eg the Portillistas at Policy Exchange also bolts straight in.
Davis has the gift of articulating the whole in normal everyday language that people can understand and relate to. He also has the confidence that comes from strong beliefs, and the experience and understanding that comes from battling his way up from the bottom.
I'm almost smiling as I type this. Better take my medication.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 21 June 2005 at 09:58
If it's not too much to ask, could you tell me exactly when David Davis has exhibited these virtues?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 21 June 2005 at 11:00
Whilst you are there could you tell me what David Davis has actually ever done, other than position himself for the leadership that is.
Posted by: Edward | 21 June 2005 at 11:18
He was in the territorial SAS, you know ;=)
Posted by: James Hellyer | 21 June 2005 at 11:49
"Has he [David Cameron] ever had a proper job, or has he worked exclusively in the Westminster village, and won't this mean his empathy with the real world is skin deep?"
He was head of corporate affairs at Carlton Communications for about 8 years. Michael Green said he was the most intelligent person he has ever worked with.
Posted by: GZafar | 21 June 2005 at 11:52
"territorial SAS"
He who dares, but only when I can get a day off work.
Posted by: GZafar | 21 June 2005 at 11:55
"He was head of corporate affairs at Carlton Communications for about 8 years."
Ah. The joys of PR.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 21 June 2005 at 12:02
"Michael Green said he was the most intelligent person he has ever worked with."
Intelligence and leadership ability are different qualities. Judging him by his words, Cameron has no solutions to offer the party or the country. He simply offers more of the same (but managed better). That's hardly inspirational.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 21 June 2005 at 12:13
Ken Clarke may be the candidate who is most popular with the voters, but he would prove a disaster as a leader in opposition because any time that Blair was in trouble he could simply raise the issue of the EU and watch as the Tories self-destructed. At the next election Labour would also make much of the fact that he would be in his mid 70's by the end of the parliament.
Posted by: M Canton | 21 June 2005 at 12:43
"At the next election Labour would also make much of the fact that he would be in his mid 70's by the end of the parliament."
Apart from everything else he is too old.
Then again, Gordon Brown will in his late 50s and David Davis will be in his 60s at the next election.
Posted by: GZafar | 21 June 2005 at 12:55
James and Edward- sorry for delay in replying- I had to pop out to see my therapist.
Where has DD shown he can articulate our ideas in normal everyday language? Try his Frost interview for a start (link on DD For Leader blog). Or the position statements he wrote for the Torygraph and Observer (again see blog). 'I am a low-tax Tory' -sure, they're all saying it now, but I don't recall many of them saying it that bluntly and unambiguously before he 'outed' himself.
What's DD ever done for us? I submit he's been a far more successful Shadow Home Secretary than any of the other Shadows- two ministerial scalps and a smart three point turn out of Howard's ID card cul-de-sac, to start with. And the best Chairman of the PAC since Pitt the Younger. And I've even heard from people who have direct knowledge that he was a much more active (and effective) Party Chairman than his detractors would have us all believe.
And I like the fact that he's openly ambitious for the top job. The last thing we need is a Michael Portillo should-I-shouldn't-I type of guy.
But of course his greatest service is still to come. Just like it was with Mrs T.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 21 June 2005 at 13:27
"Where has DD shown he can articulate our ideas in normal everyday language? Try his Frost interview for a start"
You are joking? He comes off as even more creepy than Michael Howard. That laugh has got to go.
Posted by: GZafar | 21 June 2005 at 13:43
"Or the position statements he wrote for the Torygraph and Observer (again see blog)."
The thing is, Wat, those articles could have been by anyone. They didn't really say anything beyond the leadership contest catchphrases of "reaching out" and "helping the disadvantaged". And they're all saying that!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 21 June 2005 at 13:54
Ah yes...the laugh. I do agree that others have also commented on it as a minus, although to me it seems fine. Actually, I think it was more pronounced on his R4 Today session with Humphrys. I think he had it totally under control on Frost, although we can't check because the BBC have nuked the web video.
In any event, it's a pretty minor presentational tic that a stern coach will have ironed out in a trice. I think it's one of those things that in person- face to face- says humanity and warmth, but can grate with some people on radio/TV.
And I just don't see creepy. For a start, he doesn't sleep in a coffin.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 21 June 2005 at 13:57
James- who's saying more? Even Willetts-whose SMF speech was thoughtful and generally good- was pretty light on specifics. And let's face it, Willetts may have two brains, but he's no leader.
But I suppose at the end of the day, Davis just hits a chord with me. I think he speaks from the same depth of conviction as Mrs T. I think he really believes this stuff, rather than just mouthing what he thinks will get him into the job. And unlike our last four leaders, I don't think he will be panicked into chopping and changing when the going gets tough.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 21 June 2005 at 14:09
Cameron came across as well-informed and decent on Newsnight, but also desperately young. He doesn't yet have the authority that a Prime Minister needs. That may come one day, but we cannot let him become another Hague - into the leadership too soon, and then lost to the front bench for years to follow.
He hasn't the experience either - he has been in parliament for 4 years, and has only just started his first serious portfolio job.
Our next leader needs to be able to articulate a genuine conservative vision for the country, wich faces up to the problems and challenges that confront us, and be able to capture the public imagination - so that people can see him/her as the next Prime Minister.
DD had all the early momentum because he has been running for leader for years. If he wasn't ahead now he never would be. But if he cannot sustain it, he will start to drop back quickly. His main problems are that he polarises opinion amongst his colleagues (whom we are told know him best), when we need a leader who can unite and inspire, and the behaviour of some of those MPs he chooses to surround himself with.
Willetts has done most to demonstrate some serious vision thinking, but he won't capture the public imagination. If another candidate manages to persuade Willetts that he is taking those ideas seriously, that would be a real boost.
Posted by: Simon C | 21 June 2005 at 14:17
"who's saying more?"
I think both Dr Fox and Willets have said more. Certainly both have demonstrated they have "the vision thing" (although I agree Willets is no leader). Obviously both were light on specifics, but the big picture was there.
All we've realy heard from Davis is a lot of schtick about his family background. The few general political articles he's penned have been so generic as to be meaningless.
Still he's ahead of some of the field despite that. Sir Malcolm Rifkind has been giving speeches that could have been made at any point in the last 15 years. David Cameron is idealism for managerialism.
I suppose Davis hasn't done anything to actively annoy me, unlike my last example. However he will have to start telling us exactly what stuff he does believe.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 21 June 2005 at 14:20
"who's saying more?"
I think both Dr Fox and Willets have said more. Certainly both have demonstrated they have "the vision thing" (although I agree Willets is no leader). Obviously both were light on specifics, but the big picture was there.
All we've realy heard from Davis is a lot of schtick about his family background. The few general political articles he's penned have been so generic as to be meaningless.
Still he's ahead of some of the field despite that. Sir Malcolm Rifkind has been giving speeches that could have been made at any point in the last 15 years. David Cameron has spoken on his brief, ominously substituting managerialism for idealism (where's Lord Saatchi when we need him?).
I suppose Davis hasn't done anything to actively annoy me, unlike my last example. However he will have to start telling us exactly what stuff he does believe.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 21 June 2005 at 14:21
Let's face it: the field to date is pretty thin. Fat Ken, for whom I voted with hesitations in 2001, is a busted flush. Rifkind is a discredited hangover from the Major era. DD seriously needs to clarify what his vision is, although he has some strong points, not least that he looks tha part and has risen from the bottom by dint of his own efforts. Michael Ancram simply cannot be a serious candidate. There are then the Andrew Lansleys and David Camerons of this world. Whenever they open their mouths, I simply ask myself one question: with ideas like these, why should I vote for the monkey when I can vote for the organgrinder himself, Tony Blair?
Posted by: Michael McGowan | 21 June 2005 at 14:53
James- not sure that I see much more in the Doc's offerings, but your general point is taken. Our man needs to put some more flesh on those bones.
Yet at the same time...well, just compare what he's been saying to Maggie's offerings c1975 (eg her speech to the 75 Conference: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/Speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=102777&doctype=1
Obviously DD has not proved he's a second Maggie, but on a like for like basis...well, I don't see that much difference.
Anyway, like I say, your general point is taken- specificswise, we're taking much on trust.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 21 June 2005 at 15:02
Liam Fox so far has been pretty impressive:
1) He has been spending more time getting on with his job than running for leadership (see elsewhere in the Blog, and his speech in the Commons on the need for a new approach to European policy. He's also off to Washington today to do some bridge-rebuilding.)
2) His speech on freedom was well-received
3) His interview on the need to heal our "broken society" as the next big Conservative task following the work we did to restore the broken economy in the 1980s, needs fleshing out, but is a step in the right direction
4) If you want a "life narrative" - he demonstrated his commitment to the public services by actually working in them - despite Hezza's assertion in the Spectator that all doctors are Lib Dems
5) He, and those he surrounds himself with, do not have form for actively undermining the party leadership. His USP is that you can come from the right of the party and be a nice guy.
Posted by: Simon C | 21 June 2005 at 17:10
Reading all these comments a consensus emerges: we're not doing too badly by the standards of the last 10 years of Conservative debate, but we're nowhere near reaching and impressing the world outside! There are some little shafts of optimism, and that's it.
For me, the explanation is this: when Blair came along, Labour had someone immensely attractive and with a simple message (that Thatcher had done some good things but it had all gone too far). We have no-one that attractive (DD is our best bet, and he's getting better), and we have no simple message.
The worst thing, I think, is that maybe no simple message is possible right now - because a simple, effective message is always about change, and no-one really wants change at the moment. Things are not that bad. People don't want to swap their leaders until the present ones become unbearable. It takes a lot to overcome the 'devil-you-know' impulse.
If I'm right, then we should just be looking for attractive, electable people capable of understanding and grasping the moment when it comes, and then showing leadership. That's why, for me, the best option is DD as leader and Willetts as shadow Chancellor.
Posted by: buxtehude | 21 June 2005 at 17:21