David Cameron did not face any questions about drugs from this afternoon's gathering of all Tory MPs. Concern seemed to be focused on his ambitions to 'modernise' or 'Blair-ise' the party. These concerns were, perhaps, encouraged by Saturday's Times story in which one "leading supporter" of the frontrunning Shadow Education Secretary suggested that a modernisation programme under a Cameron leadership could see Tory support drop to 25% (at least temporarily). MPs Laurence Robertson and John Whittingdale pressed Mr Cameron on what he meant by modernisation. His answers were apparently quite general other than a commitment to abandon the patients' passport policy proposed at the last election. Mr Cameron's overall performance was described as "assured".
The remarks of the other contenders also appeared to be directed to Mr Cameron (or at least a caricature of him). Liam Fox suggested that the Conservatives shouldn't become a simple PR exercise. Ken Clarke said that it wasn't enough to offer a more competent and better managed Blairism. David Davis said we "don’t just need an image. We also need a message." He went on to say that he wanted to be the antidote to Brown, not the heir to Blair.
Interventions from David Davis and David Willetts in the Evening Standard appeared designed to drive the argument home. Mr Davis told the Evening Standard that experience was key to the leadership race:
"When historians come to look back at the Blair government, they will see a lot of his mistakes stemmed from inexperience of office. His handling of the Americans, of Europe, of domestic policy all prove that."
David Willetts suggested that Mr Davis was the genuine moderniser:
"I am backing David Davis because he has got the experience and the authority to lead the Party to change. When he was party chairman he secured a big increase in the proportion of women candidates. He delivered modernisation without going on about it. That may be one reason why he has much wider support across a greater range of opinion than any other candidate."
Whilst i'm confident that Davis would 'modernise' the party competently, he doesn't Look like a moderniser to the public, or to me at least!
At the last election there was a lot of talk about how our policies had substantial support, but our party didn't - and therefore of whether we should change our name or something.
The problem is the filter with which people look at the party, and a young, fresh leader would tackle the public perceptions regarding 'modernity' etc much easier.
Posted by: Samuel Coates | 17 October 2005 at 20:20
Davis simply doesn't strike me as a moderniser, he seems more traditionalist in approach by his speeches. If the tory party do indeed want a "morderniser", its better to get someone who's actually young and perhaps modern himself.
Posted by: Jaz | 17 October 2005 at 20:44
Cameron on what he meant by modernisation. His answers were apparently quite general
Does that mean he didn't answer the question?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 21:21
What is so wonderful about "modernisation"? I have the impression that some here dream of a Conservative Party from which conservatism is eradicated.
Apart from UKIP, who would benefit from that?
Posted by: Sean Fear | 17 October 2005 at 21:52
Well, it obviously depends what you mean by 'modernise'. If it means sounding like Blair, then that can only be achieved by Cameron.
But I now take anyone saying they want to 'modernise the party' as awfully old-fashioned.
Everyone agrees it should be in tune with Britain as it is now. The trouble is, most of them don't know Britain as it is now. The Cameronians have certainly never been there. It is to be found in Croydon, not Chelsea; in Milton Keynes, not Notting Hill.
What on earth is 'modern' about Cameron? Which of his policies are modern? Which of his attitudes differentiates him as 'of today'?
Is it just a look, a sixties 'colgate ring of confidence'?
When I read this discussion of 'modernising', I laugh at our party, whose confidence has so fallen apart that it understand its own enduring strengths and will toss them out because it thinks Cameron is modern. That believes replaying Blairism ten years late is frightfully clever.
Posted by: buxtehude | 17 October 2005 at 21:53
obviously I meant "MISunderstands its own enduring strengths"
Posted by: buxtehude | 17 October 2005 at 21:55
obviously...
Posted by: muhhuh | 17 October 2005 at 21:59
Well, it's a bit like vicars thinking they'll pack them in the aisles by going and blessing motorbikes.
It's all like having one's grandparents turning up at a disco. People feel pity for you.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 17 October 2005 at 22:12
[I]
What is so wonderful about "modernisation"? I have the impression that some here dream of a Conservative Party from which conservatism is eradicated.[/I]
Agreed, I think we could be seeing History repeat itself here. Labour in the 90's decided they'd mutate into a version of our party with a few of thier own horrid policies to feel happier, while Cameron now wants to turn us into a copy of the Labour party.
Who will conservatives be left with then?
Posted by: Matthew Oxley | 17 October 2005 at 22:26
There's always Roger Knapman!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 22:30
In my mind ofcourse, modernisation is anything that people feel they can vote in. What is the purpose of the conservative party, if it sticks to the traditionalist views and fails to be elected time after time?
Blair and the labour party are in power, because its policies reach out to all people, which also means betraying their socialist policies. In the same way, Cameron seems to be the man where he can sacrifice some right-wing conservative ideas to bring in some socialist ideas.
Posted by: Jaz | 17 October 2005 at 22:40
Jaz what right-wing conservative ideas do you want to sacrifice?
Posted by: a-tracy | 17 October 2005 at 22:42
I think this line needs repeating:
"Cameron seems to be the man where he can sacrifice some right-wing conservative ideas to bring in some socialist ideas."
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 22:52
That's very reassuring Jaz.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 17 October 2005 at 22:53
James Hellyer, Jaz - i say to ye both: you're wrong.
Mr Hellyer especially - Cameron isnt as far left (in the party) as the media would like him to be.
He's nowhere near your man fox of course.
But dont paint him as some sort of ideologically bankrupt Blair - the blair analogy has been done to death on the BBC, and done to death on these forums - and it is fatuous in any case.
You're so wrong.
Posted by: muhuh | 17 October 2005 at 23:07
You're so wrong.
You're so incapable of reading. I never said he was of the far left. His own supporter did. I just hope your literacy levels aren't the product of the much vaunted synthetic phonics - if they are, then Britain is doomed!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 23:12
I just hope your literacy levels aren't the product of the much vaunted synthetic phonics - if they are, then Britain is doomed!
Proud of that?
Posted by: Bob | 17 October 2005 at 23:20
Perhaps if Cameron doesn't want to be painted as "some sort of ideologically bankrupt Blair" he should stop acting like one.
Posted by: Richard Allen | 17 October 2005 at 23:22
I see that Dr. Fox was the only candidate who accepted an invitation to appear on Newsnight. He showed himself to be a very likeable chap who could attract alot of the uncommitted voters to us.
Posted by: Derek | 17 October 2005 at 23:28
Proud of that?
Yes.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 23:29
In my mind of course, modernisation is anything that people feel they can vote in. What is the purpose of the conservative party, if it sticks to the traditionalist views and fails to be elected time after time?
What is the point of the Conservative Party, having been elected, if it has no views? You can't change policies with every swing of public opinion, or you'll get nothing done. New Labour is case in point: in eight years of power, the first term succeses of the national minimum wage and Bank of England independence aside, all it has achieved is the running of a few half-hearted experiments in reform.
That, of course, is all set to change. Tony Blair, with no more elections left to fight, has finally let his vanity get the better of him. Instead of unstinting mediocrity, we are now faced with rapid, dangerous and extremely modenr reform.
That is the future we face with David Cameron. Michael Howard was obsessed with focus groups, but he could not fully abandon his true Tory heart. Cameron, policy co-ordinator, was his right hand man, and we can be assured that he shall have no such scruplues holding him back from the wholesale destruction of our party.
Look back on the last eight years: has Labour benefitted from modernisation? Yes, it's won elections, but not on its own terms. It has failed in government; it has failed to reform. Blair is nothing but a caretaker with a smiling face and a penchant for oppression. David Cameron might win us elections (though I dispute that), but we would then be no better.
I'd go for an unprincipled Labour government over an unprincipled Conservative government every time. The running of the country would be no different, and we might at least have the consolation of being on the side of right, ready to swoop into power once the electorate saw through the lies of Labour (and, yes, it has taken them nearly a decade – but they're getting there).
Posted by: Ronald Collinson | 18 October 2005 at 01:16
Principle not power has not been a post war Conservative value since Churchill changed tack in 1947.
I fail to understand how anyone can claim that David Cameron is short on policy if you have read his personal manifesto http://www.cameroncampaign.org/thecaseforchange.html .
Trite stuff about ‘Blair lite’ does not hide the fact that our policies are often liked but our party is not. We have to connect, and some of the comments here show why we do not.
If you think we should stay in the 1980's rather than try to win elections to get these incompetent wreckers out, that's fine. But don't whinge if the Blairites go on and on and the socialism is worked into the system on a drip feed basis. Its bad enough now, but what pitiful mess it will be in another ten years of Brown.
You can put the Conservative party in a museum for school children to look at in wonder that such a great institution shoved itself down the electoral pan or choose a leader that will make it possible to win elections by moving the party firmly into the new millennium where we will regain our natural position as the party of government.
Posted by: Blue2win | 18 October 2005 at 01:46
I do love it when the Mods come here and pretend to be right wing. We should look on with loving interest - it's not a sight we're likely to see again for some time.
The silliest thing about people like 'Blue2win' (and there are an awful lot of people [sic] very like Blue2win positing on this site .......) and their faux headbanging is when they come over all Blairbashing. Remind us again what you hate about him most? Sometimes the rest of us are confused by your exact feelings towards him.
But here's the thing, and why the post above is so transparently fake, Tony Blair and this whole Labour government just *haven't* done enough for us to hate them at all. True, there's not as congenial as a Tory government would have been (to us), but let's not kid ourselves - red in tooh and claw socialism is not what we've been facing for the last few years. And what little truly objectionable stuff it has done, Blue Blairites like Cameron are determined to preserve. Or, as they put it, 'accept reality'.
Posted by: Innocent Abroad | 18 October 2005 at 02:15
Principle not power has not been a post war Conservative value since Churchill changed tack in 1947.
I don't urge 'principle without power', but power with principle. Any other sort is pointless.
It is ludicrous to 'change to win' when the entire point of the party's existence is to win in order to cause change (or, in some cases, to maintain the comfortable status quo – alas, not an option in this day and age).
Look at Cameron's website. It all sounds good, yes, but it is hardly unique. The 'recasting our values' page intentionally shows two apparently opposing viewpoints in each box, implying that Cameron can provide both. Oddly, enough he does not suggest how they should be reconciled.
I shall post an analysis of the empty statements Cameron makes on that website tomorrow, either here or on the StopCameron blog.
Posted by: Ronald Collinson | 18 October 2005 at 02:25
Fellow Conservatives, let me make a statement of fact that is too often overlooked on this site.
We must never forget that we won the argument in the 1980s. We must never forget that Britain today is defined far more by Thatcher than by Blair. We must never forget that we Conservatives killed socialism in this country.
We must always remember that it is Blair who moved onto OUR ground. He has not reversed ANY of Thatcher's greatest reforms, because he has conceded that they were right. The Labour Party ditched what it believed in, because it couldn't win any other way.
Conservative principles of choice, freedom, and competitiveness are half-heartedly adopted by Labour, but not fully or at all efficiently implemented. This is because only a Conservative government can do these things properly.
If Cameron sounds a bit like Blair at points, it is not a concession to Labour, but rather the reclaiming of our rightful, Thatcherite ground. It is Blair who is the great imitator, the great mimicker.
Foundation Hospitals? Thatcherite. Tuition Fees? Thatcherite. Tough rhetoric on crime? Thatcherite.
We should never give in and let Labour take this ground permanently - that would be a betrayal of our past. Therefore, we should support the only man who can win back the hearts and minds of Thatcherite Britain - David Cameron.
Posted by: Henry Cook | 18 October 2005 at 02:45