David Cameron how enjoys the public backing of half of the parliamentary party following today's declaration of support from ten more MPs. The ten are:
- Peter Bone* (Wellingborough)
- David Burrowes* (Enfield Southgate)
- Bill Cash* (Stone)
- Stephen Crabb* (Preseli Pembrokeshire)
- Robert Goodwill* (Scarborough and Whitby)
- Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon)
- Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
- Brooks Newmark (Braintree)
- Gary Streeter (Devon SW)
- Desmond Swayne* (New Forest W).
All previously supporters of Liam Fox, six of the ten are Cornerstone Group MPs (marked with an asterisk). The inclination of Cornerstone MPs towards Mr Cameron was noted yesterday on this blog.
If the MPs write the sort of letter penned by Robert Key MP to the Salisbury Association they could help to widen Mr Cameron's grassroots lead over Mr Davis. That lead was confirmed by two weekend polls.
Editor's note: "Reaching the magic level of half of the parliamentary party is significant in one other important respect. Mr Davis has said that the final round for the leadership election should ideally be an-MPs-only-affair. He has consistently argued that the next Tory leader should enjoy the support of half of the parliamentary party. At the time of writing it is Mr Cameron who enjoys that confidence."
They are acting on principle - the principle being they want to return to power!
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | 31 October 2005 at 09:56
Most MPs and members know that to gain power you have got to run a smart campaign and be able to sell your ideas to the voters.
Introducing policies on tax etc so far ahead of the next general election is dumb and is not the way to do it.
As I said before you can have very good policies but if you do not have good leadership skills you will not win elections.
In a nutshell, we need to work smarter not harder in order to win. DC is doing that very well.
Posted by: Nelson, Norfolk | 31 October 2005 at 11:15
I feel sorry for both candidates. We criticise DC for not giving enough detail, but when DD decides to come out with some detail he gets criticised for it. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Its a tough ol' life!
Posted by: James Maskell | 31 October 2005 at 11:20
How could you do it No.8 - I had expected more of you old buddy
Posted by: Rick | 31 October 2005 at 11:25
What was wrong with Newmark...is he your MP? Whats his history with leadership contests?
Posted by: James Maskell | 31 October 2005 at 11:33
He's a good friend of Hague but was only elected in 2005 so doesn't have a history with leadership contests.I have to admit though I'm suprised too.Poor Brooks, he doesn't have a very inspiring choice now that the two best candidates Fox and Clarke are out.
Posted by: malcolm | 31 October 2005 at 11:52
Where are these 100 names? The DC website lists only 64.
Posted by: Derek | 31 October 2005 at 12:19
Not every MP gives a public endorsment though we know 90 voted for cameron now he has picked up ten fox supporters hence reaching that 100 figure.
Cameron has commanding parliamentary support, though of course this election is out of their hands now.
Posted by: Graham D'Amiral | 31 October 2005 at 12:27
My guess is that he has over 100. I still believe some DC supporters voted tactically for DD in the final round where DC won those 90 votes.
Posted by: Editor | 31 October 2005 at 12:40
I guess it would be churlish to ask how many of Cameron's recent endorsements have been motivated by the 'gizza job' factor?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 31 October 2005 at 12:44
The number of MPs in itself doesn't matter but they do hold quite a bit of influence over the members in their associations.
Posted by: wasp | 31 October 2005 at 12:45
I guess it would be churlish to ask how many of Cameron's recent endorsements have been motivated by the 'gizza job' factor?
Probably about the same number as those who jumped on the Davis bandwagon early. Although I'm sure you mentioned that at the time... :rolls eyes:
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 31 October 2005 at 13:02
It looks likely that David Cameron will win the leadership race. I want him to win, but I hope he wins big so that we can have the most united start to his leadership as possible - with both voluntary and parliamentary party behind him.
easy for me to say as a firm supporter, but I urge wavering voters to swing behind Cameron and give him the mandate he needs.
Posted by: michael | 31 October 2005 at 13:07
I feel sorry for some of the people on this list. Sensible of the Cameron campaign to sign them up before their major new policy announcement in The Times today.
Posted by: loyal_tory | 31 October 2005 at 13:08
"Probably about the same number as those who jumped on the Davis bandwagon early. Although I'm sure you mentioned that at the time... :rolls eyes:"
I've never disputed that some of Davis's early endorsements may have been motivated by the 'gizza job' factor. But for MPs to declare support now, when it is largely irrelevant, smacks of glory-hunting bandwagon-jumping.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 31 October 2005 at 13:17
How is it irrelevant Daniel? If my MP was a Fox supporter I would want to know who he was now supporting. As my link to Westminster I would value my MPs opinion as he would actually know the people involved. It would not be the only factor (in fact my MP is a Davis supporter and despite having asked for and received her reasoning I still support Cameron) but it is relevant and interesting information.
Apart from anything else, it certainly is relevant that Cameron now has a majority of MPs supporting him, neither IDS or Howard could be certain of that.
Posted by: RobD | 31 October 2005 at 13:23
"How is it irrelevant Daniel?"
Note my use of the precursor 'largely', Rob D. I believe that declarations of support would have been much more relevant when the MPs had much more influence, i.e. before or during the MPs' ballot. To declare for the likely winner now just reeks {sic?} of shameless opportunism.
"Apart from anything else, it certainly is relevant that Cameron now has a majority of MPs supporting him, neither IDS or Howard could be certain of that."
Two points. Firstly, how many of these MPs genuinely support Cameron rather than support him because he may offer them a job if he becomes leader or support him because their preferred candidate was eliminated and believe (wrongly IMHO) Cameron to be the least worst option remaining?
Secondly, Michael Howard's 2003 leadership campaign had far more declared supporters (from a smaller pool of MPs) than Cameron has now so if (as you say) Michael Howard couldn't be certain of the support of a majority of MPs, then surely Cameron can't guarantee majority support either?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 31 October 2005 at 14:07
Although 90 voted for DC, it is interesting that only 64 are still willing to publicly declare their intention, plus these new 10 that makes 74. If he has the full "public support" of 100,as the headline says, then we ought to know who they are.
Posted by: Derek | 31 October 2005 at 14:08
I can't believe the extents some people are prepared to go to trash David Cameron...
Posted by: wasp | 31 October 2005 at 14:12
Daniel, this line of argument to explain away Cameron's support simply wont do. If an MP says he is supporting Cameron, he/she is supporting Cameron.
James Hellyer uses a similar line on Cameron's support among floating voters.
Support is support, we shouldn't try to undermine or wish it away for either candidate.
Posted by: michael | 31 October 2005 at 14:15
"I can't believe the extents some people are prepared to go to trash David Cameron..."
Oh look, somebody raises a legitimate point about how many genuine supporters David Cameron has and is accused of trashing him (although admittedly, this is a change from the usual bleating about smearing).
"Daniel, this line of argument to explain away Cameron's support simply wont do. If an MP says he is supporting Cameron, he/she is supporting Cameron."
I see you decided to not address the questions I actually asked about the motivation behind the recent declarations of support. Well done.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 31 October 2005 at 14:41
I don't need to Daniel. Besides its all so negative. Undermining support for either candidate isn't helping them or the Party.
Posted by: michael | 31 October 2005 at 14:58
If the Parliamentary Party is 50%+ in favour of DC and the Membership vote for Davis (which they still could), then we'd be back to the bad old days of IDS (Clarke won the majority of MPs and they felt that they couldn't work with IDS). That's why I voted for Howard's reforms to avoid this kind of outcome.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | 31 October 2005 at 16:07
The most likely reason for the cornerstone MPs to be supporting David Cameron is that he fits their bill closer than David Davis does. People like Peter Bone and Bill Cash are never going to be on the front bench so there is little prospect of bidding for jobs.
Posted by: wasp | 31 October 2005 at 16:27
Voting in a secret ballot is not the same as publicly declared support. We have no way of knowing the true level of support for each candidate, unless all MPs are prepared to go on the record. Quite a number of MPs have given support to different candidates at different stages, that is not the same as wholehearted support.
I have to disagree with you, Justin, the members can give a much more objective assessment of the candidates than the MPs who ought to declare a personal and prejudicial, and in many cases pecuniary interest!
Posted by: Derek | 31 October 2005 at 16:29