It’s been nearly three months since the leadership election got underway and I’ve posted 140 times and the blog has received about 1,500 comments – for which many thanks.
Together we’ve already reviewed many events and opinions. There’s sure to be much more to keep us political anoraks interested over the next few months! But I thought it might be time for a raincheck… What have been the most significant things to have happened in the last ninety days? I’ve picked seven things:
(1) Michael Howard’s hero to zero decline
Poor Michael Howard went from hero to zero almost as fast as he decapitated Howard Flight. There was delight on election night when the party gained thirty-four seats but the dire reality of the Tories’ position has since begun to sink in. The way in which Michael ’Seven Strategies’ Howard presented his reforms to the party constitution was savaged by MPs and there was even talk of him being no-confidenced (a course of action that this blog argued against). The outgoing leader’s views on tax were forcefully challenged by front-running David Davis and, perhaps more significantly, his protégé David Cameron appeared to distance himself from the outgoing leader’s election strategy.
Over-interpreting commentators overpraised Mr Howard when he became leader and are being too harsh now. The six month leadership election period that he instituted is actually proving to be a useful thing. He may not have instituted it for the right reasons but it has already thrown up some interesting ideas - as highlighted below. The party may have already got a leader if Tory MPs (always too anxious to attack Labour) had had their way but would we have got the right leader? MH’s timetable hasn’t produced the scale of examination that candidates receive from US-style primary elections but the eventual leader will be more battle-tested than if they had been installed peremptorily.
(2) The disenfranchisement of the grassroots membership
The unhappiest event of the last three months has been the decision of MPs to disenfranchise grassroots party members. 127 MPs, so-called ‘modernisers’ like Francis Maude and the Party Board have all conspired to ensure that Toryland is the only place on earth where democracy is in retreat. The pro-democracy Telegraph Ten bravely opposed this retrograde step and Theresa May, in particular, has shown inspirational passion in her defence of one-member-one-vote. A last-ditch campaign is now underway to protect OMOV at September’s Constitutional Convention. A compromise electoral college option, supported by The Times and The Telegraph, makes most sense at this stage.
(3) William Hague’s decision not to run
William Hague could almost certainly have become leader again if he had wanted the job but he ruled himself out of consideration within a week of Tony Blair’s third victory. Many hope that the former Conservative leader will nonetheless return as a top shadow cabinet minister but others wonder if the nation’s finest political orator has lost his appetite for politics. We must hope not.
(4) We’re all one nation Tories now
Michael Howard sidelined the one nation message that was a hallmark of Iain Duncan Smith’s attempt to renew the Conservative brand. But all of the leadership candidates are now competing with one another to be the most compassionate of conservatives.
First we were presented with ’one nation’ Toryism as part of Malcolm Rifkind’s four-point manifesto. David Willetts declared Britain the ‘sick society’ of Europe. Liam Fox promised to mend Britain’s ‘broken’ society. David Davis pledged to champion the poor. And, most recently, David Cameron gave a speech on social entrepreneurship to IDS’ Centre for Social Justice.
(5) David Willetts emphasises cutting the demand for government
If you are looking for a definition of ‘compassionate’ or ‘one nation Conservatism’ David Willetts has come closest to providing it. In a widely-acclaimed speech to the Social Market Foundation he said that a stronger society was essential for the achievement of social justice and a smaller state. He said:
”A society of fragmented families and fractured lives is one in which people will end up turning to the state for more support. Robust families and real neighbourhoods, as well as being good things for themselves, are a condition for reducing the burdens on the state. Here we start getting into difficult territory. A philosopher warned that trying to restore a broken tradition is like trying to repair a cobweb with one's bare hands. But I am not a pessimist. I do not believe there is a law stating that it is inevitable that societies must decay and governments grow to replace them. Inspiring examples, often pioneered by centre-right governments, show it is possible to reduce crime, strengthen families, restore respect for the professions and bring life back to local communities. If we make that our vision we will find that a smaller state becomes not an ideological objective in its own right but the consequence of life getting better for our fellow citizens. Here are the elements of a renewed Conservatism. It is long-term, not short-term. It is committed to the task of economic reform but sees that this must go hand in hand with social reform. It realises that social reform is not an optional extra to make us "nice". In reality, social reform is a condition for everything else, including the limiting of government. It gives the Conservative party a noble purpose once more."
In an article for The Times I called DW’s emphasis on cutting the demand for government “a breakthrough insight”.
(6) David Cameron endorses marriage
If David Willetts provided the contest’s breakthrough insight, David Cameron provided its Clause IV moment. Mr Cameron has been caricatured as a Notting Hillbilly. Notting Hillbillies are young, trendy and socially liberal. They are not supposed to respect “old-fashioned” institutions like marriage. Mr Cameron escaped his caricature with a thoughtful speech that included this acknowledgement of marriage’s ’externality’ benefits:
”If you came down from Mars and looked at this country and said, 'What is the one institution that helps bring up children, looks after the elderly, cares for the sick, makes us happy when we are sad?' It is the family. Why is it that we don't recognise this and do more to try to help families do what they do? …Families come in all shapes and sizes and they all need support. I think we should be clear that the evidence is that married couples stay together for longer. Therefore there is a very strong case for supporting marriage [in the tax system]. Children do better if their mother and father are both there to bring them up."
(7) Liam Fox highlights human rights
If the Tories are going to reconnect with the floating voters (that we need to lift us above the flatlining thirties and towards a majority-making 44%) we need some megawatt messages. The Shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech on human rights provided such a message. Addressing human rights abuses in, for example, Darfur, Congo and Burma reveals an idealistic, humanitarian dimension to Conservatism that has been absent for far too long. Stopping arms sales to repressive regimes also makes political and practical sense.
Postscript
Three months ago David Davis looked the likely successor to Michael Howard. He still does. Noone in the wide field of alternative candidates has shown that they will make a better leader. At least not yet. But that is not an excuse for a safety-first leadership bid. I hope Mr Davis will use the next few months to prove that he understands the extent of the Conservative Party’s electoral weakness and has the capacity and ideas to address it. We’ve heard plenty about his upwardly-mobile biography and he gave an compelling speech about his commitment to cut taxes and reform the public services. But he has not yet offered a breakthrough insight, a Clause IV moment or a megawatt message. Neither has he (nor any of the other candidates) proposed strategic thinking on homeland security - the great issue of our time that is only set to loom ever larger. Over the next three to four months these holes need to be filled.
don't you think the OMOV thing has gone far enough?
The new system being proposed gives MPs the final vote whilst associations get to have a visible and quantifyable role in consultation.
Chairmen have to call an executive council to give 2 names that they then present to the convention. At which point no-hopers like Ken Clarke and Andrew Landsley will probably drop out, giving the MPs a choice of the most acceptable candidates.
Most activits seem to think that the leader is the captain of the team in westminster so that is where he or she should be chosen.
Better than having a vote between someone you don't know and someone you don't like.
Posted by: eurocon | 29 July 2005 at 10:41
On issue 2)
Remember the deadline for submitting feedback on "A 21st Century Party" is 31 JULY.
Your comments can be sent by e-mail to
[email protected]
Posted by: James Hellyer | 29 July 2005 at 10:49
A good summary. I think perhaps David Cameron deserved a little more credit in the summing up. While we have distinct modernisers such as Lansley & Clarke and the right wingers such as Davis & Fox. Cameron seems to be able to gain support from both sides. It is true that David Davis has had some backers from the more moderate side of the party, but I simply can't see DD offering anything new, and his presentation is unlikely to appeal to the large numbers of female voters of middle England who used to vote Conservative. Cameron has already made major strides in his short time in the limelight. Of the realistic contenders he strikes me as the most likely future Prime Minister.
Posted by: anotherNick | 29 July 2005 at 17:02
The big event is the dog that hasn't yet barked in the night.
As the Editor points out, there hasn't been a break-through moment yet. When John Smith died, it quickly became clear that Blair was the likely winner, and events soon gathered momentum behind him.
Thus far, nobody had broken into a clear lead, or demonstrated that they can gather and build any momentum.
That is particularly a problem for Davis and Cameron. Both have enjoyed lots of favourable media coverage, yet neither has managed to make a convincing case.
There is a real opportunity still for another candidate to make ground up on these two.
I hope that Liam Fox will manage to do that. I'm looking forward to Stephen O'Brien's endorsement & hope that he makes a better fist of it so far than the supporters of Davis Rifkind & Willetts have managed for their men.
Posted by: Simon C | 29 July 2005 at 18:04
Interesting suggestion about Fox. Although ideally (for reasons posted on other threads) I would like to see Willetts come through the field, that has always been a remote possibility and I think Fox could be the man to watch. DD and Cameron both have rather obvious achilles heels and Fox has several obvious advantages: (1) good media performer - manages to convey conservative arguments without sounding strident; (2) loyal track record serving under Hague, IDS and Howard; (3) modest background; (4) although labelled as a "rightwinger" his excellent Let Freedom Reign speech and subsequent utterances on mending society, human rights, etc, demonstrate a capacity for thinking outside that particular box. Again, though, the key question will be: is he a potential prime minister? There is also a clear need for someone to bridge the positions of the likes of Duncan on the one hand and the Cornerstone Group on the other. Neither Davis nor Cameron seem to have given this much thought.
Posted by: NickB | 29 July 2005 at 19:17
Also, since when has Ken Clarke been a moderniser? His contribution to developing a conservative philosophy for the 21st century seems to have got lost in the cigar smoke ...
Posted by: NickB | 29 July 2005 at 19:27
You have a fair point, maybe moderniser isn't the right word for Ken Clarke. I must say it is interesting reading the pro-Liam Fox comments. While I'm not sure he is PM material I would find him considerably more preferable than David Davis. I think it is a shame Theresa May doesn't appear to have enough support, I felt she had some good leadership qualities. As is clear from my earlier post I'm backing Cameron.
Posted by: AnotherNick | 29 July 2005 at 20:01