Michael Gove MP: The Case for David Cameron

Leadership, like charisma, or beauty or wisdom, is difficult to define in the abstract. But easy to recognise in the real world. Leadership involves, but isn’t limited to, the ability to secure attention, to change perceptions, to listen to advice from wiser heads and then stick to a course when other men might falter.

There is a reason why Tony Blair became Labour’s leader when, for most of their careers, Gordon Brown would have seemed to be the favourite, both more cerebral and more congenial to his party’s grass roots. It is the same reason we chose Margaret Thatcher in 1975, when the safer choice would have been Whitelaw. Both Blair and Thatcher had that indefinable quality of natural authority, unassertive certainty and cool judgement which is the essence of leadership. And both led their parties rather than simply managing, or indulging, them. They took their parties into new territory, reading the changes in society in such a way as to dominate the agenda of their time.

The Conservative Party is fortunate in this leadership election in having a range of candidates who can make us feel good about our party. But there is one candidate, above all, who I know has the capacity to make people who’re not currently Tories look more warmly towards the Conservatives. David Cameron.

David has the characteristics of a natural leader. In his brief time as Shadow Education Secretary he has, along with George Osborne, provided the party with a new style of Opposition, less opportunistic, more principled and more focussed on the long term, which has won plaudits from sections of opinion we have lost, and need to win back, such as the Financial Times and the Economist.

David has brought a disciplined focus to our message on Education, presenting the Conservatives as the champions of rigour, parental priorities and better support for the most vulnerable, especially those with special needs. He has done all this while giving policy a warmer, more human and more accessible tone. The resut has been enthusiasm for his leadership on these issues from writers in the Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday who have traditionally been hostile to our message.

The character of a Cameron leadership is uniquely well fitted to the way we do business in the modern world. He is open to argument at the beginning of any process but determined and dogged when it comes to execution. He persuades through dialogue rather than dictating from on high. He enjoys operating in a team and recognises loyalty is something you show, not something you demand. He is open, informal, relaxed. Which is why his TV and radio performances are so assured, persuasive and attractive to those not currently Conservative.

We are lucky that a broad policy consensus unites most of the leadership candidates, with a shared emphasis on the need for lower taxes as part of a coherent economic policy, public sector reform which uses market means to deliver socially just ends and moral leadership to help heal a fractured society.

But right of centre values can only be implemented by a party which shows it understands social change and can make people who aren’t traditional conservatives feel that voting for us would be not just personally rewarding, but publicly responsible. We need to show we’re good for them and good for their neighbour. That was George W. Bush’s approach in 2000. And that approach is something David Cameron doesn’t just understand, but has made the hallmark of his campaign. Which is why I believe he has the character, potential and ideas to be a transformative leader of our party.

Comments

[Wat Tyler]

Sure, friends in the media must be worth something. And DC is 'assured, persuasive and attractive' on telly- Mrs Tyler is very keen.

But I still haven't heard him say anything that Tony couldn't say. Indeed Peter Oborne reckons his USP is that he is Tony's heir.

I'm with John Kampfner (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1540717,00.html) in wanting more from politics. I want an alternative to Blairism, and it's not at all clear I'll get it from DC.

[James Hellyer]

LOL! It looks like Simon C was right about the theme of this piece: "David Cameron: the Future of the Right."

I have to say that I disagree with almost every substantive point Michael Gove makes:

"David has brought a disciplined focus to our message on Education, presenting the Conservatives as the champions of rigour, parental priorities and better support for the most vulnerable, especially those with special needs."

Cameron has brought a focus to our education policies - an extremely narrow focus.

Cameron's first major speech in his new brief sets the tone for his "leadership" bid.

(http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=123429&speeches=1)

David Cameron is right to think it important that children should learn to read, write and do sums He is not being controversial in suggesting that it would be good if pupils were safe in class and that they should be 'stretched'.

These are views that anyone might have. And that is exactly the problem with Cameron - he's all bland generalities that could come from anyone in almost any mainstream party.

Cameron seems to think that merely saying that such things are "important" and that they are "common sense" amounts to a policy.

The one thing Cameron consistently fails to address is how we actually get schools to deliver these things. It's as if saying bland nothings is enough (to be fair, he has announced one policy giving heads the right to expel without recourse to a tribunal).

In the end, Cameron is all talk and no action. In this regard is he very like the superficial appeal and actual uselessness of Blairism.

The worst thing about his pronouncments is this: he dismisses the only realistic chance of making schools the way that he wants them, turning his back on the agenda of school choice (how this squares with Gove's claim that he respects parental priorities, is beyond me).

Cameron says that agenda 'missed the big point' by talking about 'structures'. He's partly right - but not in the way he intends - we missed the point by not clearly linking those structures to our desired ends.

Rather than scrapping school choice as a policy, we should be explaining how it will deliver better schools for all - not least the poor and vulnerable.

By abandoning structural reform, Cameron reveals himself as a managerialist - what used to be called a "wet" - and in no way the someone who understands "right of centre values."

It's for this reason that this is simply untrue:

"[Cameron has] provided the party with a new style of Opposition, less opportunistic, more principled and more focussed on the long term"

It isn't focussed on the long term at all. By accepting Blairite structures, we surrender the arguments to Labour and accept their means of delivering services.

A change of management will not be enough to improve the NHS or schools so long as the models they are based on are flawed.

But we'll never hear that from Cameron - he's too busy praising Tony Blair ("I’m proud that we have a Prime Minister who has responded so magnificently to this crisis!").

[Edward]

Without a doubt the next Conservative Prime Minister but will it be in 2009 or 2013?

Michael Gove makes a very good point by NOT focussing on policy. Cameron is a hugely talented leader capable of speaking with real authority whilst also listening and leaving you in no doubt that he is making a sound judgement.

That is fundamentally different to Blair, who has always done what the focus groups have told him. Apart from once every five years when the eyes go wide and crazy and the hair stands on end "I only know what I believe so I must kill".

The only one that won't be painted as a right wing nutter by the BBC helps too.

[James Hellyer]

"Michael Gove makes a very good point by NOT focussing on policy."

Indeed. If he did focus on policy we'd soon notice that they're all New Labour retreads.

[Ray Davies]

Reading James Hellyer's comments re David Cameron (and his praise of Tony Blair among other things) just after I read a very telling article in The Times by the director of Populus was very apt.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1717147,00.html

Of all the candidates on offer, only David Cameron would move the party forward to have a chance of winning the next election.

[James Hellyer]

Disagree. That Times article criticises the Conservatives for "not standing for anything anymore". That seems a fair defintion of Cameron's prospectus to me: more of the same, but this time from the Conservatives.

It also complains that "The frustrated search for territory beyond the Blairite shadow took the Tory election campaign to the wasteland of HIV testing for immigrants, strict quotas for asylum-seekers and a crackdown on gypsies, while saying little about the economy, hospitals or schools." Besides the little matter of Cameron being our election policy co-ordinator, taking this as implying that we must ape Blairism is disingeneous at best.

We can talk about schools and hospitals and improving services. The one thing we can't do is rely on a claim that we'll manage it better. Not only does that rely on the incumbents screwing it up, but because they believe in the structures they will always sound more convincing.

[The Political Thinker]

As time goes on, I'm starting to feel it would be a terrible thing to have Cameron as leader. I've read his speeches, seen him on television, read this endorsement and listened to others comment on him... and honestly, I now believe it would be a terrible thing to have him as leader.

As has been rightly said before – He is New Labour, a Tory version of Blair. We don't need this – It may get us elected, but he won't then radically change his policies for the better of the country. We need someone who like him is good on television and is likeable, although who has the right ideas on policies (smaller government, lower taxes, a strong position on Europe (ie: out) and Britain's role in the world, more public choice, less dependence on the state, an emphasis on patriotism, etc.).

"We need someone who like him is good on television and is likeable, although who has the right ideas on policies (smaller government, lower taxes, a strong position on Europe (ie: out) and Britain's role in the world, more public choice, less dependence on the state, an emphasis on patriotism, etc.)."

That sounds remarkably like Dr Liam Fox.

[Ray Davies]

"As time goes on, I'm starting to feel it would be a terrible thing to have Cameron as leader... may get us elected"

That is totally what is wrong with the Tory party. It took labour 18 years to see where they were going wrong, it looks like it will take us longer.

[Michael McGowan]

By Michael Gove's high standards, this was pretty poor. Platitudes aside, I fear that, at bottom, Cameron is a career politician who wants power. The Oxford Union was full of such people when I was there. Like Tony Blair, they are all "charming" in the way that the English upper middle classes are. Their charm is their offensive weapon. They mean what they say WHEN they say it....just like Don Giovanni. When they need to hang you out to dry, they will do just that.....with impeccable good manners. Ask David Trimble: he should know from eight years of dealing with TB. Are Cameron and his coterie any different?

I have only a limited sense of Cameron having anything approaching a vision of what is wrong with this country and equally importantly, how he would put it right. Stripped to its essentials, his manifesto seems to be about placing the Tories one cigarette paper's width to the right of Tony (to adapt a Portilloism) and then assuming that people will vote for them on the basis of mistaken identity. Blair and Brown are far far too savvy to let this happen, and in any case, many traditional Conservative voters are likely to be either dead by the next election or no shows. There is little point attracting a few floating voters with a Blue Labour manifesto if your core vote is contracting.

[James Hellyer]

"That is totally what is wrong with the Tory party. It took labour 18 years to see where they were going wrong, it looks like it will take us longer."

What nonsense. Whatever else that Times article showed, it told us that Cameron was not the answer.

Labour moved to inhabit Conservative areas of policy because Labour's own ideas had been consigned to the dustbin of history. Ours have not.

What we have done wrong since 1997 is completly failed to articulate a positive Conservative vision. We've flirted with tabloid politics by talking about immigration and the like, but we've never tried to actually sell some of the very good policies we had in "core" areas.

The response of our defeat in 2005, should not be to throw out good policies along with the bad. Polices on school choice foundered not because they were bad, but because we never even tried to sell them (perhaps our policy co-ordinator should take some blame for this).

Instead Cameron seems to offer a vision that would see the Conservatives in office, but not in power.

[The Political Thinker]

“That sounds remarkably like Dr Liam Fox.”
Just as planned. ;-)

“That is totally what is wrong with the Tory party. It took labour 18 years to see where they were going wrong, it looks like it will take us longer.”
A large proportion of Labour voters will vote Labour regardless – They've no idea why they even vote for them, apart from the fact their parents did, and they haven't a clue what the difference between Old and New Labour are.

We don't need to ape New Labour just to attract a few swing voters in the middle. And by doing so, we will put off our core voters who will just abstain – I know quite a few who have done so already. What we must do is define our position – No one knows where we stand on taxes, public services, Europe, our role in the world, homeland security, the environment, civil liberties, personal freedom, patriotism, our relationship with the United States, etc.

It's all a grey area. People say “I think...” - That isn't good enough. People must KNOW where we stand. Be defining where we stand, and ensuring that there is no possibility of confusion, we will not only attract the swing voters, but also all those who have abstained in the past.

[Ray Davies]

"A large proportion of Labour voters will vote Labour regardless"

As they will Conservative, as can be seen in 1997.

"People must KNOW where we stand"

What like saying we should consider pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights to aid the fight against terrorism.

[Michael McGowan]

I was also struck by how SW1A - centric Michael Gove's views are, especially as he is a Scot. He seemed very preoccupied with the lack of support that the Tories have from parts of the mainstream media such as the FT and the Economist. So what? The FT is a deeply dull organ which has been doggedly pro-Labour since 1992. Journalists such as Philip Stephens are only ever going to back a Tory leader made in the social democrat image and likeness of Saint Tony. The Economist has a glib answer for every question and above all, wants to be on the winning side. Hence its stance. Much the same can be said of the Times, with honourable exceptions such as Patience Wheatcroft and Michael Gove (when he was there).

The Tories' media challenge is to use unconventional methods (especially the Internet) to bypass the London politico-media bubble and project their ideas directly to their target voters. But by centralising control of the Party, the Tories will make this harder, not easier.

[malcolm]

Yet again even with his elegant prose Michael Gove has in my opinion resorted to vague generalities in trying to 'sell' Cameron.Perhaps he has given an impossible task as Cameron along with all the other candidates has yet to elucidate how he will change the party or our policies.I really do wonder if any of the parliamentary party really realise how much we have to do to become popular again.
A true 'leader'would have more to say about the proposed changes to the Conservative Party constitution as the winner will have to carry not only MPs but also members with them going forward.
To be fair 'though all the other candidates with the exception of Theresa May and Andrew Lansley also flunked this particular test.
Unlike you James I don't see that Camerons 'vision' is wrong I just don't see a vision at all!
I wonder if either he or any of the other candidates have one to offer.

[James Hellyer]

"What like saying we should consider pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights to aid the fight against terrorism."

Please explain why the ECHR is a good thing.

[James Hellyer]

"Unlike you James I don't see that Camerons 'vision' is wrong I just don't see a vision at all!"

Just extrapolating what I can from his few policy pronouncments! His line on education seems to be the Labour policies with added expulsions. That's hardly a seismic shift!

[John G]

"That is totally what is wrong with the Tory party. It took labour 18 years to see where they were going wrong, it looks like it will take us longer."

I really don't think that's a phrase that can be applied to the problems with Cameron. (Others maybe...)

The crux of the issue is that Cameron is a continuation of New Labour, and yet New Labour methods of operation are utterly alien to most Conservatives.

Most people posting on here - who seem an intelligent bunch - would agree that re-treading where the party has been since 1995 is not the answer to the problems. But what Ray Davies' comments miss is that there are other candidates who offer real change that is more palatable to Conservatives and better for the country than DC.

One example is Willetts - read his speeches. Many of his ideas, which hopefully will be taken along by the next leader, would change the party for the better.

Have been interested to read threads about Fox/Green on here. They have contributed far more intelligently to the whole debate than I expected. I would now be less averse to a Fox leadership than Cameron, and possibly also DD.

[Ray Davies]

"Please explain why the ECHR is a good thing."

Huh? Did I?

[James Hellyer]

"Huh? Did I?"

So it wasn't a sarcastic rejoinder?

[Ray Davies]

No it was meant to be sarcastic. This is what I said:

"People must KNOW where we stand"

What like saying we should consider pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights to aid the fight against terrorism.

[Edward]

I sometimes wonder whether many of you realise how much the Conservative party collapsed in the 1990s to the point where it is in real danger of disappearing, the Liberals are doing a lot better than they think.

Its all about moving left, this right wing politics has been an absolute bloody disaster for this party.

[James Hellyer]

This right wing politics? What right wing politics? We banged on about immigration, yes, but in almost every other way we accepted the country as it is. When it came to health we pledged to spend MORE than Labour. We matched and bettered almost every spending commitment going.

So what right wing politics did we espouse? Tax cuts? Alas no, because we wanted to fund them by borrowing in thehope of saving enough via efficiency to pay the loans back.

And as for this:

"the Liberals are doing a lot better than they think"

Actually they aren't. Their decision to position themselves well to the left of the government means that they have also painted themselves into a corner.

The marginal seats where they are the principal opposition are all Labour held and that means that their activists are going to have to tack ever further to the left in their relentless campaign to mop up New Labour’s disaffected supporters.

This creates a massive tension between their target and urban seats and their rural bases. Down in the Westcountry, they tack well to the right on may issues. They will have problems reconciling this.

If the Lib Dems couldn't get a major break through on the back of the one off "anti-war" vote, they never will.

[The Political Thinker]

“As they will Conservative, as can be seen in 1997.”
No. I mean Labour's core voters will vote Labour regardless because they don't know what the difference is (or at least most don't). If we were to ape New Labour (which we haven't yet fully done), then our core voters would desert us.

[Ray Davies]

"No. I mean Labour's core voters will vote Labour regardless because they don't know what the difference is (or at least most don't). If we were to ape New Labour (which we haven't yet fully done), then our core voters would desert us."

What rot. The Labour vote has stayed pretty solid to labour despite them moving away from their roots.

It would be nice if the Tories could appeal beyond their core 30% you know, maybe even become the Government and install conservative values into government.