David Cameron’s Clause IV moment gives him some momentum

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK (EDITION THREE)

This undoubtedly has been David Cameron’s week (+3).

> He received the front page banner headline in Wednesday morning’s Telegraph for his thoughtful speech to Policy Exchange. The speech was also given generous billing on that night’s BBC News bulletins.

> Newspapers – including The Sun and London’s Evening Standard – then appointed DC as DD’s leading opponent.

> And he received the financial backing of the heavyweight Tory donor, Lord Harris.

What was interesting, almost startling, about David Cameron’s speech this week was his commitment to tax breaks for marriage. DC is seen as the arch-modernisers’ candidate and they have always been associated with the most socially liberal of policies. They, it was thought, are the least likely group to support an institution associated with the most traditional of Tories. DC and his speechwriters – Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin and Steve Hilton - looked at the evidence which shows how marriage underpins child welfare and social justice and they acted on that evidence. The BBC’s Martha Kearney once said that abandonment of support for marriage would be the Tories’ Clause IV moment – proving that they were in touch with the modern world. In fact: support for marriage may be David Cameron’s Clause IV moment – proving that the modernisers (at least some of them) are in touch with the real world. There is also a lot of low politics here, of course. Despite the disproportionate attention that media-types like Ms Kearney give to the Soho modernisers there are relatively few of them within the ranks of the Conservative parliamentary party. By embracing marriage David Cameron is wooing the block of traditional Tory MPs who are instinctively likely to vote for David Davis or Liam Fox.

At this stage it is important not to over-state David Cameron’s prospects. This blog’s ’Who’s backing who?’ analysis suggests that he’s yet to win the support of many MPs. The ex-Carlton TV executive may be the darling of the political pundits but DC’s campaign needs many more parliamentary backers before it can be taken very seriously.

David Davis (+1) made a little more progress this week. Sketchwriters and commentators gave good reviews of his parliamentary opposition to Charles Clarke’s ID cards bill. He also won the backing of former Tory Treasurer Lord Kalms. DD’s main weakness remains the antics of his lieutenants. One MP told me this week that their bullying continued to antagonise their colleagues. Three questions, he said, could still sink David Davis:

”Do you really want Derek Conway as Chief Whip?
Andrew Mitchell as Party Chairman?
Eric Forth as Leader of the House?”

Next week will be a very important week for DD. He gives his first big speech of the campaign – to the Centre for Policy Studies. He needs to rise above the bland and show that he has a plan to lift the Tories above the decade-long-flatlining that has just been carefully analysed by Lord Ashcroft.

Liam Fox (unchanged) is rumoured to be picking up more parliamentary supporters but this needs to be substantiated by public declarations.

Andrew Lansley (+1) had Sunday’s media all too himself and used it to emphasise the problem with the Tory Party’s “personality”. His aides suggested that Ken Clarke (unchanged) might be prepared to back him but today’s Telegraph story still suggests that Ken will run himself (on an anti-war, pro-Old Europe ticket).

David Willetts (unchanged) was very quiet this week but is speaking to the Child Poverty Action Group today.

Other candidates continue to attract attention but are not going anywhere in terms of parliamentary support… Alan Duncan (-1), Theresa May (-1) and Sir Malcolm Rifkind (-1). Perhaps it’s time for these candidates to make gracious exits and back one of the frontrunner candidates. The breadth of the Tory field is already producing some public ridicule.

Last week's 'good week, bad week' can be reviewed here.

Comments

[buxtehude]

I think it would be a mistake for Theresa - or anyone - to bow out now. She should play the long game. Because of your weekly scoring, you are making this seem like a quickie contest but that applies the wrong structure.

The whole point of Michael Howard insisting on going to December is to give DD plenty of time to stumble. All the others should keep that in mind and play it to advantage. So long as they don't bow out, they still have a chance of either winning or being a key player.

Remember that while DD is gaining support, he is also alienating a lot of people. They (the DD team) think - and are acting - as if they have it 'in the bag', and THAT could be their downfall. Even if it isn't their downfall, it makes them less attractive and will harm their chances in the long run, after the contest is over. (Remember, they will need a loyal, energised, smart party to have any chance of beating Gordon Brown.)

[Wat Tyler]

"Three questions, he said, could still sink David Davis"

Naturally none of these three vital questions is about the personal abilities of the candidate, or his beliefs, or the future of our party, or reaching out to the electorate.

In the immortal words of J Chirac, 'it's pafetic and tragic'

[buxtehude]

I think, Mr Tyler, you're wrong: how the party relate to each other is vital. MPs have to feel their talents will be harnessed into a team, otherwise why should they be there? And if that can't be achieved, you can't have a Brown-beating campaign. This stuff matters.

[Wat Tyler]

I'm not saying it's not important. But really- we need a leader who can tick more boxes than just having those Westminster prima donnas not disliking his supporters. That approach gave us Hague in 97 and IDS in 01.

[Wat Tyler]

And- come to think of it- Major in 1990.

[Gunger]

This support for marriage proves that Cameron is in touch with tories members, but not with the real world.
It'll be a disaster. The Libdems are already thanking him.

[Becker]

"This support for marriage proves that Cameron is in touch with tories members, but not with the real world."

So, in the "real world" people don't think marriage should be supported? Oh dear.

"The Libdems are already thanking him."

The Lib Dems should be worrying about all their seats in the South that could easily be lost at the next election...

[Sean Fear]

I suppose most Western governments who provide favourable tax treatement for marriage are also out of touch with the real world

Civitas weren't too impressed by what Cameron had to say:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/archives/2005/06/family_matters.html#more

[malcolm]

I s that a fact Gunger?I'd really like to see your evidence for making such a sweeping statement.As far as I'm aware more famillies live together in marriage than not.
Even if this were not so Camerons ideas seem eminently sensible to me.Do you think it right that people should be penalised for getting married?

[buxtehude]

"But really- we need a leader who can tick more boxes than just having those Westminster prima donnas not disliking his supporters."

Yes we do. Please understand, I want DD to win. I really really want him to win. But I want him to be Prime Minister too. And his campaign right now is just not good enough. It has to be top notch at every level. We have to be able to say, "These people could run the country." Can we say that now? Obviously not. Can we say they'll grow into the job? I'm not sure.

The campaign manager recently phoned The Sun's 'Whip' columnist and asked to be mentioned as DD's campaign manager. Whip didn't do it because he was given nothing worthwhile to write. This gives you a measure of the quality of team - a) to want so badly to be mentioned b) having no idea how to handle the press.

Those of us who want DD as PM have to hold out for an improvement.

[Wat Tyler]

Buxtehude- I do see the concern. But other than blogging away here in our pyjamas, and keeping our fingers crossed, what do you think we can do? Any recommendations?

[Mark O'Brien]

Perhaps it's some kind of snobbery on my part, or perhaps just plain arrogance; but I'm not altogether impressed with any candidate. David Cameron would be another Tony Blair: a walking disaster whose only plan is to sit there looking pretty. He has nothing about him which we should look for in an inspirational and strong leader, and even if we give him five or ten more years to grow, I still don't think he'd get it.

David Davis doesn't have the kind of gutsy strength or passion about him either. He does have a 'better' background which he can milk for all its worth (I don't criticize him - I would too!), but his supporters - as was mentioned here - aren't exactly the most formidable men and women.

Liam Fox may have the problem again that he lacks the passion or the spirit that we want from a leader.

Lansley impressed me last Sunday on television but nonetheless I always worry about people who dwell about the party's image, rather than what we stand for and what we intend to do.

Ken Clarke is just boring me now. All the questions over 'will he stand? won't he stand' prove that he may have a rather inflated sense of his own importance. He'd gain more respect to me if he carefully retreated back, but still made his voice and his experience heard.

Rifkind doesn't impress me either - bland, dull, uninspiring. Willetts certainly has his thoughts in the right place, but the leadership is not for him. I think he would be a successful Chairman by bringing his talents to many aspects of the job.

It's the more unconventional candidates who are pleasing me right now. I don't know what Theresa May really stands for and I wouldn't say she has a great deal of character that a good leader could do with. But there is something about her that impresses me. Straight after the election, I suggested to a couple of people that I'd like Alan Duncan to have the leadership. He has personality and character, and probably the kind of spirit and strength, as well as all the right ideas. I think it's unfortunate that he's been written off. He's one of the few Members of Parliament who can go on a television screen and impress me.

But I'd rather wait until a leadership campaign actually starts before making up my mind... I suppose I'll have a while to wait!

[buxtehude]

Wat, I'm doing all I can, and I'm sure you are too. I'm talking to my friends at work and saying that DD's an interesting guy and "Did you see him on tv, wasn't he great?" And I phone my friends in higher places than me, and I say, "You know that Cameron can never win for the Tories don't you?" And I keep my fingers crossed. It's not up to us, there's nothing more we can do.

[buxtehude]

Mark, a good summary, though I think you're too indulgent of Alan Duncan - he just isn't serious.

But I especially like your line, "I always worry about people who dwell about the party's image". I think you're absolutely right. The party's image IS a problem and that signifies something very important BUT you can't have a leader who worries about it. Althoughs little people who think they understand 'brand' can write their critiques, and maybe some of them have somethign worthwhile to add at the margins. But leadership isn't about fretting on these things. The 'brand' will change with the right leader.

[Bellman]

”Do you really want Derek Conway as Chief Whip?
Andrew Mitchell as Party Chairman?
Eric Forth as Leader of the House?”

This does matter - the front bench that a leader picks says a lot about the party. IDS dealt himself an early blow when he picked Forth and Cash for his front bench. In fact both did a decent job, but the damage was done.

"The campaign manager recently phoned The Sun's 'Whip' columnist and asked to be mentioned as DD's campaign manager. Whip didn't do it because he was given nothing worthwhile to write. This gives you a measure of the quality of team - a) to want so badly to be mentioned b) having no idea how to handle the press."

This is the problem with the two "front runners" - "Desperate Davis" and "The Boy David", as the press and Labour are likely to dub them if either wins. One wants it too badly, and the other is too unready.

We mustn't allow our choice to be artificially restricted by the media construct at this stage. There is still all to play for.

[Editor]

In the first post of this thread Buxtehude wrote...

"I think it would be a mistake for Theresa - or anyone - to bow out now. She should play the long game. Because of your weekly scoring, you are making this seem like a quickie contest but that applies the wrong structure."

Buxtehude, you're right, I'm wrong. TM has made some of the more interesting contributions to the debate so far (eg on party democracy) and the media are only taking her half-seriously because she's a possible candidate. She deserves to be listened to and, yes, there's no hurry for her to drop out.

[Jack Stone]

David Cameron would be just another Tony Blair.Please God! Perhaps Cameron would then do for his party what Blair as done for his, win three elections running!