John Maples MP: David Davis has the personal qualities to make him a successful Tory leader

This is the second in a continuing series of 'guest endorsements'. The next endorsement - of David Willetts - will be written by David Lidington MP.

Since 1945 only two Prime Ministers have been re-elected and served two consecutive full terms: Blair and Thatcher. Each had a clear big idea and succeeded in connecting their parties with the electorate’s aspirations. They both ran very positive and passionate campaigns, they were for not against things and gave strong leadership, but with very different personalities. They are both worth studying for the personal qualities that made them successful. Successful political leaders are rare.

Almost all debate about the Conservative Party leadership has been about the agenda we need to follow and very little has been about the personal qualities required in a new leader. They are at least equally and probably more important. British elections have become increasingly presidential; the character and image of party leaders are crucial to success. It is demonstrably no good just voting for a leader whose political views most closely conform to one’s own.

Most of what has been said about the agenda by the “modernisers” is correct: we need to address public services and social issues constructively and in a way that appeals to floating voters; we need to connect with the hopes, fears and aspirations of those millions of voters who are thoroughly disenchanted with Labour, but seem unable to bring themselves to vote Conservative. Most Conservative MPs would agree with most of this. There is not a huge gulf between modernisers and others, but the right agenda is no use without an effective leader.

Leadership is one of those intangible qualities that is difficult to define, but recognisable when you meet it. A successful Conservative Leader must look and talk convincingly like a potential Prime Minister; be able to communicate with voters in a tone and language to which they can relate; clearly understand the lives of ordinary voters; belie public prejudices about the Conservatives being for the privileged; have real leadership qualities and clear, well thought through views; inspire loyalty and follower-ship; and be good on TV and radio. Candidates should be evaluated against these criteria.

David Davis has all these attributes. He has a convincing presence and an excellent relaxed style on TV and radio. He is a good communicator. At the last two elections we failed to get our ideas across; research has shown that many of our policies are attractive to voters, until they are told the policies are Conservative ones. David Davis would be able to connect our values and policies to people’s lives, their hopes and fears. That is only partly an agenda issue; it is far more important to be able to get people to listen by talking in a language and a tone to which they relate. It is much easier to do this if you understand the lives of ordinary voters, which I believe he does.

We have a very negative image and are thought to be out of touch, for the rich, living in the past, unsympathetic etc. It is vital that our new leader clearly belies those prejudices. David Davis’s background is absolutely not that of a typical Tory. He has a warm and classless image, in tune with modern Britain.

His views are always very well “thought through” and therefore strongly held. If you are not convinced yourself, it is very difficult to convince others. Much of the work that the party has done on public services, helping the disadvantaged, localism etc. was begun and developed by him. His instincts on ID cards are right and without him we would be saddled with the wrong policy.

A successful leader needs courage as well as vision, the ability to stand up to colleagues as well as to the fashionable view and to take, and stick to, difficult decisions. Politics can be very difficult and leadership very lonely. Our new leader must really want the job; not just want to be Prime Minister, but want the job of making the Conservative Party relevant and electable.

We must choose a leader who has the ability and skill to communicate the message of modern conservatism to the electorate. I believe that David Davis best fits the specification. He might even be as good as Thatcher, he is certainly better than Blair.

Comments

[James Hellyer]

"Almost all debate about the Conservative Party leadership has been about the agenda we need to follow and very little has been about the personal qualities required in a new leader."

I'd have said the debate has been about the opposite. We've heard a hell of a lot about Davis's background (which Maples unsurprisingly mentions) and how this suits him to the leadership. Similarly we've heard a lot about how normal and consensual Cameron is. Even Dr Fox has tried to trump up his working class credentials.

What we have heard very little of is the agenda we need to follow beyond the usual platitudes about "reaching out". It's only now with some of the CPS lectures and the Cornerstone pamphlet, that we've come anywhere near to seriously looking at what direction to take.

[Tory Reaction]

What is this: 'Most of what has been said about the agenda by the “modernisers” is correct': a Fox plant?

"Elect Davis, get an even uglier Mod"? Portilloism with a broken nose? Contemporary Blairism for Carreerist Circumstances?

Ye Gods - that the Davis operation sanctioned Maples to scribble this: will their lack of nous never end?

"It's only now with some of the CPS lectures and the Cornerstone pamphlet, that we've come anywhere near to seriously looking at what direction to take"

James, on the whole I accept that's true, but I don't think any of us can deny, whatever our thoughts on his leadership credentials, that David Willetts has, throughout, been looking intelligently at the direction to take.

[James Hellyer]

"David Willetts has, throughout, been looking intelligently at the direction to take."

Given that he's been our policy wonk for some time, does he also get some blame for past misdirections?

[James Hellyer]

"What is this: 'Most of what has been said about the agenda by the “modernisers” is correct': a Fox plant?"

I wondered about that. Are we meant to believe Davis is in total agreement with Chairman Maode then?

[Ray Davies]

"He might even be as good as Thatcher, he is certainly better than Blair."

OMG. Looking forward to Davis leading us to at least 3 election wins in a row and 2 landslides...

"Much of the work that the party has done on public services, helping the disadvantaged, localism etc. was begun and developed by him."

I'd really like some substantiation for this claim.

[Nick]

Much of what John Maples says makes sense... it just doesn't sound like he was talking about David Davis! There is truth that there are a lot of good candidates but few who at the moment come across as strong leaders. Before reading this I didn't want David Davis as leader and since reading it I don't think John Mapples does either.

[Bellman]

"Our new leader must really want the job"

"Desperate" Davis certainly wants it. He's been campaigning for this for years. Is it true (as was reported at the time) that he registered his website for his 2001 leadership bid during the actual 2001 general election campaign?

"Much of the work that the party has done on public services, helping the disadvantaged, localism etc. was begun and developed by him."

Is this true? I thought IDS Willetts & Letwin were the prime movers. Don't remember much from DD on this - are there any old speeches that we can see to set this straight?

"Almost all debate about the Conservative Party leadership has been about the agenda we need to follow and very little has been about the personal qualities required in a new leader"

Take me through how this fits with DD's emphasis on his personal narrative? I agree with James & co who think too much of the debate has been pretty thin so far.

"He has a convincing presence and an excellent relaxed style on TV and radio".

He can come across as grey and colourless - as others on this Blog have pointed out.

Agree with Maples that the leader needs to be somebody that looks like a Prime Minister in waiting. Am yet to be convinced that Desperate Davis is that man.

[Simon C]

"He has a convincing presence and an excellent relaxed style on TV and radio".

He can come across as grey and colourless - as others on this Blog have pointed out."

It strikes me that this is (yet) another good argument for an open primary; the winner would have to be good on TV & Radio. I wonder how much better able our MPs are to assess a candidate's media performance (bearing in mind they will also have personal contact and "chamber" experience of candidates) when compared to the rank & file membership, most of whom only have the TV & Radio to go on.

[Derek]

Whoever gets the job must believe in the right policies, and be the best person to represent the party in putting over those policies. At the moment I am leaning towards DD as the best to do those two jobs. The face of the party - authority, respect, appeal. Most voters will decide on the basis of a few short slots on the news, and an appearance on Richard and Judy etc. DD has a facinating story to tell, therein lies his appeal.

[Peter Littleton]

I would certainly concur wholeheartedly with what Mr Maples says about DD's capability as a communicator. It is quite refreshing to hear him give an interview. He seems to have the effect of always sounding like a pragmatist and not so overtly partisan. Something Mr Blair used to be able to do with devastating effect. I think DD would be able to draw the centre ground his way, just like Blair has managed to do with PFI and public expenditure.

Secondly, although I would admit that we need to hear more, I would suggest that DD is the only candidate at the moment, apart from David Willets, who is presenting us with a 'big idea', most regularly quoting Winston Churchill's ambition to have a society in which there was no limit to what one might achieve, and yet a line beneath which no man may fall.

Landslide election wins come to those who capture hearts and minds, and this is achieve by promoting a wide ranging, idealogical agenda, rather than a set of individual policies (albeit with some particular popular ones.

In short DD has the personality and ambition that our leader needs to have if we are going make the jump from 33 to 44.

[Bellman]

Maples on Davis:
"A successful leader needs courage"

It's difficult to square this with the report in today's Guardian that Davis won't comment on the debate about leadership rules because it would be "too dangerous" for him to do so.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Come on - slightly unfair. If he stated he favoured a system that the media believes would help him - how dould that be portrayed!

[James Hellyer]

Not as political cowardice. Davis, Cameron and Fox have all failed on a point of principle.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I disagree. Directors of companies should have no role in voting on their remuneration packages, as they have a vested interest - and leadership contenders should excuse themselves from deciding the method of election when they too have a vested interest.

[James Hellyer]

That's a false analogy. A director's remuneration is not a point of political principle. That you should be paid for your work is accepted. That you should dictate what your employer pays you is more debateable. In any case, a director's salary does not remove every other stakeholder's salary.

Membership voting rights and direct democracy are points of political principle. By not voting the leadership contenders are tacitly endorsing the total removal of voting rights from other people. Therein lies the difference.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I trust you have responded to the consultation on this issue and made your feeling known to the party.

Ive been a member of the party when the MPs chose the leader and a member when us ordinary members had a vote. It may upset some people, but it isn't the biggest issue for me as to who chooses our leader. Ideally it would be great if we could all have a say and get it done before Party Conference. But is that option of offer?

I just want a leader who can sound the right notes with the electorate, enthuse the members, and take the fight to Labour.

Today there is an article in the Times:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1736602,00.html

about how Labour are already starting to plan for a fourth term and are revamping their campaign structure. We need to do the same and now - not after Conference - or after holding months of debate as to what we believe in.

Abstaining does not equate to endorsing anything.I dont think either Rifkind, Cameron or Davis are unpricipled - and quite frankly I would chose either of them over the current occupier of Downing Street.

"I trust you have responded to the consultation on this issue and made your feeling known to the party."

I made my views clear to my MP before each 1922 committee vote (in which he ignored my sage counsell).

I also submitted a paper to the Party Board offering a detailed rebuttal of "A 21st Century Party", and provided ABC with the contact details for my National Convention representative (who will also receive a letter detailing my objections to the proposed changes).

Those objections are amply rehearsed elsewhere on this blog.

"Abstaining does not equate to endorsing anything"

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to stand idle". It is a tacit endorsement because they decided not to let the motion though without a fight. They did nothing to oppose it.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Very nice quote - but it still doesn't equate to endorsing the proposal.

Like I said - the bigger issue for me is winning the next election. I have the say the method of choosing the party leader wasn't mentioned on the door step when I was fighting my seat - however a goo dmany political issues were. As such I and I suspect many others will be basing their choice for leader on where they stand on those issues and how we are going to get the party into a position to deliver.

I am sure there is much we agree on, as the often used phrase about the party, is that it is a very broad church. I have to say that if I do get a vote on leader - it won't be where the candidates stood on allowing me that vote that will determine how I cast it.

[Simon C]

I don't want to repeat all the arguments about the benefits of primaries, Jonathan. But the importance of the method of selecting the leader is that it might enable the new leader to do the things that you want him to do.

An open primary would mean that a group of people at the top of the party (the leadership candidates) would all be trying to engage with the electorate. They would have to address the electorate's concerns. That would force them to set out a vision for the country, not the Party. The winner would have to be a good media performer - because that's how the electorate would judge him. He would have to capture the electorate's imagination. The whole primary would receive a good deal of coverage, which would mean that more people at the top of the party improved their media profile.

At the end of it, the electorate would tell the Party who it wanted the next Conservative Prime Minister to be.

In contrast, an election which takes place with an electorate of just 200 MPs is inward-looking, focuses on the concerns of the MPs, engages with the country not at all, marks a step away from democracy, and conflicts with one of the Party's core values - how can we trust the people if we don't trust our own membership?

[AnotherNick]

I must say having a read a number of similar views on leadership primaries I would support the idea as well. There are far too many people who don't get a say in an MP only vote. Of course the membership are obvious, but it must be tough on MEPs, AMs & MSPs who will all have to publically back the new leader and be judged by his/her decisions, yet has no direct say.

The other snag with 'MPs only' is that you only get a view from areas with Tory MPs when the job of the new leader will be to extend popularity into areas without MPs. So with a confession that I am jumping on the bandwagon of those writers on this site who have long back ed primaries. I back primaries too.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Agree with some points completely. I think we need to attract new people into the party. At the age of 30 I was not only a PPC but actually the youngest member in my constituency. To me that is worrying. I hear so many stories of people who want to joing being made to feel unwelcome - and that is something I am determines to play a part in changing.

On the subject of primaries my personal view is that if someone wants a say in how the party operates - they join and get invovled. I am very wary of going down the US route of primaries - as I feel it devalues membership.

[James Hellyer]

"it still doesn't equate to endorsing the proposal."

Yes it does. They are allowing a point of wider principle to go through without protest. If you do not object to something you are accepting it via your inaction. I expecy better of my representatives.

"if someone wants a say in how the party operates - they join and get invovled"

And what say does that give them exactly?