There are an increasing number of visitors to this blog and for new folk (as George W Bush would describe them) I should say that impartiality is thrown aside in this ‘Good week, bad week’ feature and I present a personal and partial review of the last seven days. If you want to read the five previous reviews please scroll down the GWBW category page.
GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK (EDITION SIX)
The week started with David Cameron (+2) addressing the Centre for Social Justice. The Telegraph loved the speech and so did I. The most impressive thing about DC was his manner and the way he answered the questions from the poverty-fighting groups that IDS had assembled for the occasion. DC was pitch-perfect. An expression I’ve used before to describe one of his recent Any Questions? performances. The performance reminded me of Matthew Parris’ endorsement of DC of last Saturday:
“He is completely without swagger yet never without command. He has the courtesy of a leader. He treads softly. He does not rush to judgment yet leaves you in no doubt he exercises judgment. He is the most well-judged potential Tory leader we have seen in years.”
I’m a social conservative and have suspected that David Cameron – who advocated liberal policies on drugs as a new MP – was not my ‘cup of tea’. But he encouraged me with his speech on marriage and he appears to have a real passion for the poorest members of society. To my surprise I’m becoming more and more interested in his candidacy. At the start of this contest I would have considered voting for Davis, Fox or Willetts. David Cameron is now on that list of four. I’ll be watching to see if he adopts robust positions on crime and the war on terror in the remainder of the contest.
David Cameron picked up two more parliamentary backers this week – and David Davis (+2) gained the supported of Patrick Mercer (see ’Who’s backing who?’ for a full run-down of candidates’ supporters). DD remains the frontrunner and he’s proving as consensual as David Cameron has urged Conservatives to be with the way he has worked with Charles Clarke and Mark Oaten in the aftermath of 7/7.
Liam Fox (+1) has been in Washington for much of the week and held talks with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Yesterday he highlighted the problem of Britain’s ‘broken society’ in another speech to the Centre for Social Justice. The speech focused on domestic violence.
As for the other candidates… Ken Clarke said he probably would stand. Nothing from Malcolm Rifkind. Andrew Lansley, David Willetts and especially Theresa May deserve special commendation for being part of the pro-democracy Telegraph Ten.
Many will hope that some of the ‘junior’ candidates would follow Alan Duncan’s lead and quit the race. I certainly hope they won’t imitate the manner of his departure, however. His attack on the “Tory Taliban” was a gift to our party’s political opponents. I wonder if Mr Duncan has any idea how offensive the Taliban adjective is? Afghanistan’s Taliban regime was dictatorial and murderous. Thank God George W Bush decided to rid the world of it. Mr Duncan probably thinks that President Bush’s views on abortion and family make him a Taliban conservative, in need of being “rooted out”. AD is talking nonsense. What we need – if at all possible - is a ‘change alliance’ between what I’ve called ‘Soho’ and ‘Easterhouse modernisers’ – not a fight between them.
LIST OF SHAME
Another fight that should never have been necessary is the fight to protect one member one vote. And I end this week’s GWBW with my ‘list of shame’ - with degree of shame declining as the list goes on…
Top of the list are the 127 MPs who voted to disenfranchise the grassroots party workers who did so much to put them in parliament. Shame on you.
Then comes the Party Board who purport to represent rank-and-file members but sold them out in their sham-consultation deal with the 1922 Committee. Shame on you.
The ’22 itself and Michael Howard come next. Mr Howard wrote to MPs telling them that it was this deal or chaos. In that he conspired with the ’22 and their Machiavellian timetabling of the vote for the last week before summer recess. MPs could have used previous weeks to vote on other options but they deliberately let the time run out. Shame on you.
The members who have told their MPs that they don’t want the vote. Shame on you. That may be OK for you but what about Tory members in target and little-hope seats who don’t have an MP? ConservativeHome.com’s survey of members showed a majority in favour of members retaining some direct vote in the leadership election.
Finally a little bit of shame on David Cameron, David Davis and Liam Fox. They all abstained in Wednesday’s vote. They said it was wrong for them to influence the rules of a race that they were likely to participate in. But isn’t there a really big democratic principle at stake here? Taking the vote away from people is something foreign to the reforming history of the Conservative Party. Giving more power to MPs gives more power to the dispatch-box/ point-scoring/ PMQs/ yahboo mentality that has so damaged the party and politics generally. Come on guys – please stand alongside democracy and members in general – and campaign for a compromise option (perhaps an electoral college) at September’s Constitutional Convention. Please!
Hear, hear.
The list of shame. Any chance we can get those 127 MPs' names? I think we should be told.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 22 July 2005 at 13:02
I am now more convinced than ever that DC is the best person to lead our Party.
He says all the right things about the main issues facing our country and I will say it again that DC is the only candidate that passes the TV test.
As for the election procedure I support your idea of the electoral college. I hope that our MPs listen.
JFM
Posted by: JFM | 22 July 2005 at 15:32
Mr Editor, you really worry me. Someone throws you a bone and you jump up and down and wag your tail. Don't you know that's what they're good at, these lads who have grown up only in the school of PR? All that Cameron now has to do now is drop some Bush-ite phrases on the 'war on terror' and you'll be a dribbling spaniel.
Maybe that does make Cameron the ideal leader for 200 spiritually impoverished MPs. But, even if I cast aside the idea that a proper leader should have some deeper roots, I still don't believe - on his 'pitch-perfect' PR basis alone - that Cameron is the man for post-Blairite times. The public is fed up with it. After the real Blair, they will not want a weedy version of Blair.
Posted by: buxtehude | 22 July 2005 at 16:30
I'm still not impressed by Cameron. Bizarre talk of rewarding voluntary workers through the taxation system (which kind of goes against the spirit of volunteering), has failed to change my opinion of him.
He may be a good performer, but that's all he seems to be: a performer.
Let's have some idealism please.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 22 July 2005 at 16:42
Oh sorry! For a moment I forgot and thought my opinion counted for something.
Feel free to ignore me and then claim I was "consulted". Apparently that's the new black.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 22 July 2005 at 16:45
Buxtehude: "All that Cameron now has to do now is drop some Bush-ite phrases on the 'war on terror' and you'll be a dribbling spaniel."
It'll just be great - for a start - to hear one of the leadership candidates give a serious speech on terrorism. The anti-democrats in the party have caused a great and unnecessary row and have diverted attention from this GREAT ISSUE OF OUR TIME. There are tens of thousands of people who hate everything about our way of life. They want us terrorised, humbled and destroyed. I fear that the use of explosives is only the start of more terrible attacks they that will attempt on us. The Conservative Party will not have a future - and will not deserve one - if it doesn't fashion itself as the party of homeland security.
So, Buxtehude, I won't be a "drooling spaniel" because of a few "Bush-ite" phrases. I want the Michael Moore conservatives to stand aside and the bulldog candidate to emerge. Where is (s)he?
Posted by: Editor | 22 July 2005 at 17:03
Well, I do happen to agree with you on the war on terror. My point is just that you are easily excited by superficial, easy words and phrases dropped as tidbits. Or so it seems. Of course my great admiration for this site means I should be gentler. Characterising you as a pathetic fawning spaniel is perhaps slightly overstated.
Posted by: buxtehude | 22 July 2005 at 17:25
David Davis and Liam Fox are in the best positions to say something substantive on that subject now. It quite obviously falls into both of their briefs.
Perhaps something will come out of Dr Fox's bridge building exercise in Washington.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 22 July 2005 at 18:24
The problem candidates have to face in addressing terrorism - to my mind - is to make a balance between freedom and civil liberties (which should be the keystone in the mind of any true conservative) and tackling the terrorist threat. I've written today on my weblog (link on my name) what my position is. As far as I'm concerned, any candidate who gets close to my position on terrorism/liberty is doing well!
Posted by: Mark O'Brien | 22 July 2005 at 19:07
Re your comments on Mr Duncan's description of certain members of our Party, Taliban is a noun and Tory is an adjective. No job for you as an education adviser to Mr Cameron!
Posted by: Kenneth Irvine | 22 July 2005 at 23:01
It seems that I am not only a spaniel but an uneducated one at that!
Posted by: Editor | 22 July 2005 at 23:03
Well, Spaniels are dumb animals.
Poor Tim!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 22 July 2005 at 23:09
It is surprising that an excellent website like conservativehome.com has fallen for these so called compassionate overtures. It is like the husband who emotionally abuses his wife and then comes back with a love poem promising not to do it again and the wife takes him back in only to be cruelly betrayed and ignored.
Just like the poor lady your memory becomes selective and you ignore the past: the cronyism of the Notting Hill Set, the covert plans for destroying party democracy, and Cameron's past support for all manner of arch libertarian causes, most notably substance abuse.
If Conservatives are to win the election, you will need to look beyond the love poems about compassionate conservatism and remember the past.
We desparately need a leader who can connect with people from all walks of life and has a story to tell about struggle, aspiration and merit. Somebody who families and communities can connect with as they struggle with their daily lives and work day and night to ensure they have a decent standard of living. Someone who doesn't - in the eyes of the electorate - embody privilege and patronage.
No dear Editor, you are in danger of being seduced by warm words. Remember that elections are won on the streets and in housing estates. They are not won in the confines of a few smart venues where smart speeches are given designed to produce editoirials like yours.
Yours in sadness
Watlington
Posted by: Watlington | 23 July 2005 at 00:05
One afterthought. Given that you are clearly influenced by those who indicate support for comassionate conservatism, why do you not give Liam Fox a greater score for his speech to the Centre for Social Justice this week? Why is that only Cameron gets real praise?
Posted by: Watlington | 23 July 2005 at 00:33
Liam's speech to the CSJ was good, Watlington, and he got a +1 as a result. I gave David Cameron a +2 because he not only gave a good speech (on compassionate conservatism) he also won a couple new parliamentary backers during the week. LF may be waiting until the party conference and beyond to announce new parliamentary backers but he's not had any big endorsements for some time - hence the more modest rating I gave him.
Posted by: Editor | 23 July 2005 at 08:57
Why do neither the CSJ or the party website carry a copy of Fox's speech?
Posted by: Simon C | 24 July 2005 at 21:37
The CSJ will be rectifying this problem soon, Simon. You'll notice the CSJ doesn't yet have DC's talk either. It's not a question of bias! I can't speak for why conservatives.com doesn't have it posted.
Posted by: Editor | 24 July 2005 at 21:56
Found the "Broken Society" speech on:
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=124108
Posted by: Simon C | 03 August 2005 at 20:04
See also
http://www.realpolitics.co.uk/?page_id=298
Posted by: James Hellyer | 03 August 2005 at 20:17
MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE
Posted by: JEROGatch | 05 November 2006 at 17:46