Has 7/7 tilted the Tory race towards former SAS man David Davis?

That’s the question posed by Fraser Nelson in this morning’s The Business.

Mr Nelson believes that “Thursday's bombings take us into a new era”. The defining feature of that new era, he writes, “will be the fear that the [London] attacks, bad as they were, were not "the big one" - and that worse may still be to come”.

Mr Nelson continues:

“The Conservatives… have a new prize: to portray Labour as ineffective on terrorism. This, in turn, may tilt its leadership contest more towards David Davis to replace Michael Howard. As shadow home secretary Davis gave an eloquent speech on Thursday - doubtless knowing it may double as a leadership audition. The market for former SAS men like Davis has risen in the past few days: the market for old Etonians such as David Cameron has fallen.”

The initial public reaction is positive towards Tony Blair, however, as yesterday’s YouGov poll showed. The key weaknesses of Labour in the war on terror are its failure to control Britain’s borders, its political correctness on policing and its dealings with Sinn Fein. If they are real weaknesses it is the duty of Her Majesty's Opposition to expose them and present the British people with a path to greater security.

Comments

[Jack Stone]

Personally I believe that the government have largely done all that can be done to stop terrorism and I think if David Davis were to start to attack the governemt on there stance to terrorism he would not only damage the party because people would belive political capital was trying to be made out of the trgic events of 7/7 he would damage his own leadership chances because people would see yet another example of he and his followers sinking into the gutter.

[buxtehude]

I agree - attack on the gov on this would be absurd. 'Helpful suggestions' would provide the better tone. And his thinking, if not his utterances, should be influenced a little by Charles Moore's excellent piece in yesterday's Telegraph.

It may be unfair, but I do think the bombings emphasise the lightweight character of Cameron. In difficult times, we need someone who's lived a little, seen something of the world, experienced it from the same place as most other people in this country.

[Editor]

Dietrich Buxtehude is quite right about Charles Moore's excellent piece of yesterday on finding Islam's Gandhi figure.

I'm personally not sure about Buxtehude and Fraser Nelson's emphasis on biography, however. Sure, DD was an SAS man and may be readier for the war on terror than DC but not necessarily so. George W Bush's military service did not stand comparison with John 'three purple hearts' Kerry but Bush undoubtedly had the iron character and better ideas on how to defeat terror.

And that's what we need - we need more 'helpful suggestions'/ 'better ideas' on how to defeat terror. It is not "sinking into the gutter", Jack, to say that more can and should be done to police our borders, investigate extremist groups within Muslim communities and, yes, consider whether compulsory ID cards might be part of the answer to the huge threat we face. The police want them, after all. It's not "sinking into the gutter" - it's the first job of any serious political party - it's called protecting the homeland.

It's perfectly legitimate to ask which of the Tory leadership contenders are best-equipped to do so. In fact, it's not just legitimate, it's vital and urgent.

[Guido Fawkes]

Fraser is wrong, it would be empty rhetoric to have a go at Blair as being weak on terrorism.

Time for constructive comments / action and unity, not trite political point scoring.

It would be cheap.

[buxtehude]

It's not mere 'biography', Editor - it's experience: what a man or a woman has done and been is what they are. It matters.

[buxtehude]

And my name is not Dietrich. I take exception to your getting personal.

[Jack Stone]

I think its rather strange to say that because someone was a member of the Dad`s Army version of the SAS and came from the working class this naturally makes them an ideal choice to be leader of the Conservative Party.
There are two things that make a leader character and principles.Where you come from or what you do in your spare time is irrelevant.
I back David Cameron because I think he stands for the policies and principles that will make the party capable of winning elections and I like the man`s charcter as I think he as a good heart and wants power to make this country a better place to live in not as some sort of ego trip.I frankly couldn`t give a toss wether he went to a cimprehensive school or a public one the same way I wouldn`t care wether he was black or white, gay or straight.Its about time people in the Conservative party started to behave as if there part of modern Britain and started to accept people for who they are not what they are.

[buxtehude]

That's fine - I agree that it doesn't matter what school you went to. But what does matter is

a) whether you are perceived as being in touch with 'ordinary people', or privileged

b) whether you have had life experiences that have truly tested your character and your intellectual grasp of the world.

As an older person, I find (b) very very important. There isn't a simple 'talent' for leadership.

[malcolm]

Jack for once say something interesting.You really are a boring little troll aren't you?

[Richard Allen]

DD is far too astute to go OTT attacking the government over terrorism. His performance thursday showed that he will continue to broadly support the government while reserving the right to make constructive criticism of various policies.

Furthermore he has no need to do anything spectacular. As the clear front runner all he needs to do is avoid banana skins.

[Editor]

Guido - you're right to say that "political point scoring" would be "cheap" over terrorism. I was disappointed, for example, by the way Michael Howard appeared to try to exploit Labour's difficulties in Iraq. Our job was and is to build public understanding of the link between terrorist networks and rogue nations like Saddam's Iraq.

That doesn't mean, however, we should always seek the "unity" you emphasise where that "unity" would not be in the interest of Britain's national security.

We need to show that Labour's mismanagement of the immigration system is increasing the nation's vulnerability. We need to expose the political correctness that is stopping the police acting against internal threats. And we need to keep promoting our idea of a US-style Cabinet Minister with responsibility for homeland security. I've just heard Patrick Mercer MP on Andrew Rawnsley's Westminster Hour. He was pitch-perfect in congratulating the security services in preventing incidents until last week, whilst making the case for a review of the failure of the intelligence agencies to spot/ stop Thursday.

[Jack Stone]

David Davis was totally wrong to call for an inquiry about the London bombings. Sometimes it is right for an opposition not to oppose but to back the government, calling for an inquiry like this does look like implyed criticism, this is such a time.
A more astute politician would have recognised that.

[James Hellyer]

"David Davis was totally wrong to call for an inquiry about the London bombings."

If only Michael Howard hadn't already done so...

[Richard Allen]

And why is so wrong to call for an inquiry?

After such an event it is surely right that difficult questions be asked. That's not political point scoring, it's basic common sense.

[Michael McGowan]

Is Jack Stone a pseudonym for Jack Straw? Why shouldn't we have an inquiry into what went on last Thursday? Scores of people lost their lives and hundreds more were injured in an outrage which was a total surprise to all of us. The inquiry may exonerate all concerned but it is both absurd, and irresponsible to suggest that nothing can be learnt from last week. Those who suggest otherwise seem to have a not-so-hidden agenda to lionise Tony Blair and discredit David Davis.

[Sean Fear]

Eventually, there is bound to be an inquiry, so what is so terrible about requesting one?

[Simon C]

"Personally I believe that the government have largely done all that can be done to stop terrorism".

Sorry Jack - unless you are privy to knowledge as a security insider, you cannot possibly substantiate that. You might want to believe it, but you simply don't have the evidence on which to make that assertion - none of us do.

There will have to be an inquiry at some stage - whether it's as big as the USA's 9-11 Commission remians to be seen.

The issue, though, is one of timing. It would be quite wrong to spend any time on an inquiry now - we don't know what happened, or who was responsible. That is the focus of a criminal investigation - which should be where all efforts and resources are put. Once we have completed the investigation - and had a trial if we identify the culprits - then we can have the inquiry, on the basis of what we then know.

The Conservative leadership ought to be making clear what it thinks the priorities are - and when it thinks we should have the inquiry.

[malcolm]

Michael Howard seems to backtracking today,he's now asking for an inquiry 'in due course'.Another mistake I'm afraid by our party.

[James Hellyer]

It just made us look opportunistic again. That's something of a trait of the Howard leadership.

[Becker]

Mr Howard, who had been rebuked at a shadow cabinet meeting before lunch for joining David Davis's calls for an inquiry at this stage, instead lavished praise on the prime minister's conduct, which Charles Kennedy and others, including the Rev Ian Paisley, confirmed.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1526603,00.html?gusrc=rss

David Davis, shadow home secretary, has been forced on to the defensive over his suggestion the government had tried to drive through anti-terror laws for its own political ends.

Earlier this year, Mr Davis asked: "What happened to the hundreds of terrorists roaming our streets? Was it just convenience that they appeared then disappeared in the run-up to an election?" He insisted this weekend that his point that "you shouldn't exaggerate the numbers" was still valid and said the Tories remained concerned that control orders could "act as a recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/353ebcee-f272-11d9-8e69-00000e2511c8.html

[Jack Stone]

The one thing events have proved since 7/7 is that David Davis and Michael Howard are as useless as one another.
David Cameron is perfectly right when he says that the party should not oppose just for opposition sake.
The public will respect the party far more than it does at present if its seen to put country before party political advantage.

[Cllr John Ireland]

Let me first point out that a previous reference to the Territorial Army being 'Dads Army' is completely wrong and totally offensive to those men and women who give up their time to serve in those forces. I was a 27 year Regular Soldier and such a description beggars belief. As for 21/23 SAS those men take 6 months to complete their initial training and once qualified, are on call to their regular counterparts 22 SAS where many have subseqeuntly served so less of the ill informed criticism of the TA please.

David Davis is what is euphemistically described as a mans man and his background is clearly relevant here. In a party that is still very much a hotbed of snobbery and class distinction his achievement is a breath of fresh air. He also does have leadership quality and here I agree, leaders are born not made although they can be developed somewhat.

As for opposition, it is the duty of an opposition party to point out the governments failings and I am afraid that in this case their failings are too many to be selective. Any other position is stupidity and that stupidity is the very cause of our problems today, we have far too many appeasers who are only interested in their own careers.