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

[Bruce]

Jonathan, you and others have commented that the spending in America by politicians on elections is too high. I don't think the existence or nonexistence of party primaries is the cause of that. And while I'm not happy about campaign spending, I don't think it should be limited by government.

America has a written constitution, with Freedom of Speech enshrined. And "Freedom of Speech" means, primarily, freedom of political speech. Any laws that limit political spending limit free speech.

In practice, Aermican donors tend to give money to candidates perceived as winners. I won't go into the why of that. I'll merely observe that in practice the money goes to the candidates with the votes, father than the votes going to the candidates with the money. Thus the danger is minimal that unqualified candidates may spend their way to victory.

In practice, limits on political parties and candidate's election spending give more power to the media, which is of course free to publicize issues and parties. Since in America the mainstream media is predominantly anti-Conservative (often virulently so), campaign spending limitations tend to benefit the political Left. And benefit incumbents, who get free publicity from the media by virtue of their incumbency. Why the Tory Party would want to preserve a system that benefits incumbents and the media is beyond me.

[Bruce]

James, "Dubya" was leading in the polls for the 2000 Republican nomination before any money was spent. I've never heard a mainstream Republican seriously contend that George Bush "bought" his way to the nomination, or that some anonymous PAC "bought" his nomination.

Another common misconception is the notion that the Republican Party is financed by millionaire donors. In fact, and this is true for the last 40 years at least, the average Republican donor gives less money than the average Democrat donor. There are just a lot more Republican donors. It's the Democrats, if anyone, who are in the thrall of the megabucks donors.

[James Hellyer]

He wasn't leading in all the polls and spent and massively outspent all the other candidates in the primaries.

[Simon C]

"Oh they do matter - but not to me as much as electoral success does."

Point being (and yet to be answered IMHO) that you cannot separate the two as clearly as that. If we engage with the electorate in the way that a primary would require, we would improve our prospects of electoral success.

A primary is not a universal panacea - far from it, but it would be an important step in the right direction.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Labour didnt need primaries to win two landslides. I think its putting far too much faith is something that quite frankly could raise more problems than it solves.

No evidence has been presented as to how effective primaries were when they were used in various seats for the 2005 election. Has there been a huge surge in membership in those seats? Did we increase membership to a huge extent?

[James Hellyer]

Are two seats enough to make a decsion on, or would that require a huge generalisation to be extrapolated from a small base? Would the results be expected to be immediate anyway?

[Bruce]

James, in an earlier post I have addressed the fundraising point you raise. Put simply, donations are a sign of the candidate's support, rather than the cause of that support. More to the point, Bush was ahead in the polls from the start. Just do a google search for "1999 poll bush republican" like I did and view the CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls of March 5, 1999 and June 28, 1999, among others.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

A small scale trial is seemingly a better basis for using primaries that just a feeling they may help us engage.

And as Ive asserted before -Labour and to a similar extent the Liberals in certain areas have connected with the electorate without primaries.

[Simon C]

"Reform's manifesto strikes me as offering the worst of both worlds."

James, please would you elaborate a little? What's your critique of Reform?