David Davis - against privilege and for reform - wins the week

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK (EDITION FOUR)

Even before Thursday’s bombings the Tory leadership race had slowed a little. In the week of Live8, G8 and the Olympics decision the competition for attention was intense and most contenders decided to pipe down.

The very start of the week offered the only real windows of media opportunity and David Davis used Monday night to make a big speech to the CPS. The speech enjoyed a broad welcome from The Daily Telegraph and, more importantly (!), from visitors to this blog. It also stood out from the crowd of other interventions that have often appeared clichéd and platitudinous. Peter Riddell mocked up a standard Tory leadership speech in Wednesday’s Times:

”We have lost touch with the people. We must modernise/ occupy the centre ground (or not, depending on the fashion of the week). Freedom and the family should be at the centre of our appeal. We should aim for a smaller State and lower taxes, while guaranteeing every child a proper education and every patient prompt care. We should stand for individual liberty and personal freedom, while protecting hard-working families from yobs and criminals with zero-tolerance policing. We should resist the encroachments of the nanny State while opposing violent and sexually explicit television programmes and videos.”

The Economist found DD’s speech refreshingly different. Concluding that the Shadow Home Secretary has a clear compass on public service reform and tax policy, it gave the credit to the Reform think tank. If DD becomes leader, Reform and its former director, Nick Herbert MP, the author of the CPS speech, will become hugely influential. So, in a special award, I give Reform +2 and advise everyone to carefully study their manifesto.

For ‘Watlington’, who has become a stand-out observer of the Tory leadership race on the Social Affairs Unit blog, DD’s speech was an important attack on privilege. Watlington writes:

”Although seen by some as an attack on the Notting Hill set, Mr Davis was making a much wider point. He was saying that as someone from humble origins who had made it to the top, he knew about aspiration and merit as opposed to privilege and patronage. Herein lies a kernel of a modern Tory story. __It is a story that fights against privilege wherever it occurs. For example a mission against privilege says that everyone, rather than just the pushy or the rich, should have access to the best healthcare and education and have the levers of power to make sure that this is so. It says that the lowest paid should pay less tax so that they have the same opportunity as higher rate tax payers. It says that Conservatism should stand up for the small business rather than the unfair cartels of the multinationals. Above all, an attack on privilege means a sense of social justice. It means an open society based on giving people a fair deal rather than one in which all the levers of power are in the hands of the state. It means a society that liberates economic and social entrepreneurs to fulfil their potential but also ensures that those left behind are properly and compassionately cared for.”

DD gets +3 for the speech and the week overall. It was a brave speech and he confirmed his reputation for bold thinking. He also promises speeches on social reform and foreign policy. The foreign policy speech will need to include thoughts on the war on terror and homeland security. Peter Riddell’s mock speech doesn't even include a empty phrase about the 9/11 world. That absence is a small confirmation of the fact that none of the Tory leadership candidates have yet outlined a strategy to protect the British people. I award a –1 to each of the four candidates who opposed the Iraq stage of the war on terror. Some pundits have already started to partly blame the Iraq war for Thursday’s carnage. But such people have an impossible problem with chronology. The war began on 9/11 - which happened before Saddam was toppled. Leaving Iraq will only embolden the terrorists and as the group claiming responsibility for attacking London said:

”We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Notice the “and Afghanistan.” Al-Qaeda etc want the western powers thrown out of the many territories that they want to terrorise and Talibanise.

David Cameron was on Any Questions? last night and gave a compassionate and statesmanlike performance. He criticised the tendency towards anti-Americanism of another panellist and opposed Labour’s voluntary ID cards bill as being irrelevant to terrorism.

That performance – with perfect tone – and two more parliamentary endorsements gives him +2 for the week.

David Willetts receives +1 because of last week’s speech to the Child Poverty Action Group which The Economist described as “compassionate and lucid”.

In last Sunday's Observer Liam Fox (+1) tiptoed further away from his opening Cut The Size Of The State speech to a more subtle concern about the tension between market economics and social cohesion.

Winning The Theresa May Hero Of The Week award was Michael Ancram for supporting grassroots members’ voting rights.

Comments

[Graeme Archer]

I have this feeling that by disposition I ought to favour David Davis, since he articulates the sort of conservatism that resonates with me. But I have an "and yet, and yet" feeling - does anyone know what I mean? It's maybe because I've not been overly impressed with his skills in westminster; I know it's not sufficient to dominate the dispatch box (see William Hague, Michael Howard for detals), but it might be necessary? I could be totally wrong, I don't nerdishly video and watch every performance. David Cameron is clearly a wonderful man too, and I'm human, so the relentless, positive coverage he receives in the Times and the Mail must be having an impact. Really, am still confused.

[JFM]

I too listened to David Cameron on Any Questions? and I must say that I was very impressed with his performance.

His communication skills were excellent and his overall presentation skills were outstanding.

Although I like DD I feel that he has not got the skills required to be a Leader such as the ones outlined above.

DD may have good policies but in my opinion he does not pass the TV test. He will therefore, I regret to say, not be the man to win us the next election.

On the other hand David Cameron comes across as a winner. He has got good policies, excellent communication skills and most important of all he passes the TV test.

I urge our MPs to be brave and vote for David Cameron to be our next Leader. Go for it.

JFM

[buxtehude]

DD does need a bit of work - but he has a great asset: he sounds as if he means it. That is the vital foundation. AND he sounds like a 'regular guy'.

Cameron does speak well - but he sounds as if he's delivering a line and could have delivered the opposite line just as happily. It's the worst side of Blair, the bit people are fed up with. And he comes across as a privileged young man. Very nice, but not what we need.

[James Hellyer]

"I too listened to David Cameron on Any Questions? and I must say that I was very impressed with his performance.

His communication skills were excellent and his overall presentation skills were outstanding."

The career in PR has paid off then!

[Medical Student]

VOTE for DR. LIAM FOX:

He is a medically qualified physician - a trust-worthy DOCTOR

[James Hellyer]

I'll second that.