GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK
Ken Clarke had as good a September as David Cameron had a bad September. Ken Clarke electrified the contest and seemed set to be the likeliest opponent to David Davis. All those pre-summer stories that framed the contest as DC vs DD began to look highly suspect. DC struggled to win any attention and some commentators – including this blog – wondered if the Boy Wonder needed to call it a day. Things started to change on Saturday 24th when DC finally embraced the always obvious theme for his campaign - modernisation. His slick launch of last Thursday then overshadowed that of David Davis. His launch messages were a powerful statement of this blog’s And Theory Of Conservatism (a fact which was kindly and publicly acknowledged by Michael Gove at a fringe meeting on Tuesday). For those reasons I awarded last week’s top prize to DC. But if DC did well last week, he excelled this week. He found the ‘something very special’ that was needed to supercharge his leadership bid.
David Cameron (+7) gets my highest weekly award of the whole contest (for a candidate). His speech of Tuesday had the perfect pitch and heartfelt compassion that enthused me on 22nd July. He thrilled his audience. The Tory rank-and-file started to love him as much as Ben Rogers and the floating voters assembled by The Guardian and Newsnight. By yesterday, when his face appeared on the conference’s big screen a huge cheer went up. Suddenly Mr Cameron is the bookies’ favourite.
Of all five declared candidates David Cameron has, perhaps, the greatest potential. He could be the candidate to decisively break from the Conservative Party of Black Wednesday, sleaze and the decade of flatlining around 30%. But DC is also the most untried of the candidates. Tuesday’s speech was very light on detail. Before I am prepared to vote for him I want to know much more about his beliefs. I can’t say that I’m very reassured by his last four years in parliament:
- He supported libertarian drug policies when on the Home Affairs Select Committee.
- As aide to Michael Howard he was at the forefront of the lawyerly and inappropriate responses to Hutton and Butler.
- As Head of Policy he must take some responsibility for the thin manifesto that Michael Howard offered the British people at this year’s General Election.
Where does Mr Cameron stand on reversing ever closer union? Does he support human cloning? Is he prepared to support military intervention to match his powerful rhetoric about the suffering in Darfur? These are the sorts of questions that Mr Cameron must face and answer. If he gives good answers he probably deserves to be our next leader. But he has to earn the leadership for himself. He shouldn’t become leader simply because David Davis has failed.
But David Davis (-5) did fail this week. Yesterday, Sir Malcolm Rifkind broke the rule about not criticising other candidates, when he told Radio 4 that he didn't see how a man who couldn't inspire his own party, could hope to inspire the country. Time and again I’ve complained about his campaign’s failure to inspire. That failure was disguised by September’s rolling thunder of declarations of parliamentary supporters. There is now talk that DD has over-declared and some supporters may defect to Cameron or, particularly, Fox. As argued yesterday, DD must overhaul his campaign team. The Blackpool Conference felt like an American election but currently DD lacks the American-style machine to deliver victory in this campaign. Passion and a little razzmatazz needs to come from someone, somewhere. Action must also be taken to stop the little things like the annoying laugh during radio interviews and the big things like the bullying of new MPs.
If the main winner was DC, and the main loser was DD, the runner-up winner was LF and the runner-up loser was KC…
Liam Fox (+3) gave a good speech and secured four more endorsements. At a human rights fringe meeting on Tuesday (postscripted under this post) I witnessed a hugely inspirational Liam Fox. I only wish many more had seen him. Dr Fox has emerged as the most principled contender in this race. The other candidates may have judged – perhaps rightly – that strong views on abortion, the EPP, Iraq and human rights are unhelpful when it comes to wooing the wider electorate. But the next party leader won’t prosper if the wisdom of principled counsellors is always drowned out by the tactical advice of pragmatic counsellors. Voters want authenticity as well as calculated moderation. Dr Fox is now a serious force in the Conservative Party. What is left of the Cornerstone Group of Tory MPs – a minority of which have now declared – should end the self-indulgent idea of fielding their own candidate and support Dr Fox.
Ken Clarke (-2) didn’t put a foot wrong this week. He gave a warmly-received speech and, like Cameron, he (and the inestimable Richard Chalk) had assembled a small voluntary army of enthusiastic leafletters. But KC was almost as burnt by the heat of Cameron’s rise as David Davis. He received no prominent new backers and he failed to produce real enthusiasm from the conference representatives. Mr Clarke may yet bounce back – and Cameron may yet falter – but he appears to lack the votes to secure the second placed position amongst MPs. Dr Fox (if he can secure the support of the Cornerstone Group) now looks a more credible threat to David Cameron getting that second spot.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (-3) gave a very good speech on Monday but he has gathered no momentum. He says that he will soon be announcing new parliamentary backers and insists that he will compete in the first round of the parliamentary contest. I’m not convinced.
***
I work with Iain Duncan Smith at the Centre for Social Justice so my conclusion to this week's 'Good Week, Bad Week' comes with a 'bias warning' but I judge that Iain had an exceptional week, too. When David Cameron praised the party's last three leaders during his speech on Tuesday, he praised William Hague for helping to save the pound; he applauded Michael Howard's success in organising an ill-disciplined party; and IDS was saluted for putting a passion for social justice back at the heart of the Conservative Party. Mr Cameron, who has been the leadership candidate who has given most support to Iain's CSJ, wasn't the only one to notice. All of the candidates - to differing extents - are adopting Iain's idea that Conservatives must put concern for vulnerable people at the centre of our mission as a party. Peter Oborne, in discussing the weakness at the heart of the modernisation project, also thought that Iain had a great deal to still offer the party:
"[Modernisers] talk the language of change, but not much more. Tory MPs at Blackpool attacked their party for this; it ought to be the other way around. In the end it is the Tory activists who hold the clue to the party’s future, not the MPs with their directorships, safe seats in the Home Counties and agreeable pension arrangements. Only one politician in the Conservative party really understands this point, and he set out his vision very well on Monday afternoon in a fascinating speech. The task ahead, observed Iain Duncan Smith, ‘is not about changing the party to fit its public face, it’s about fitting the public face to what we really are’. The Tory party should glory in what it is, not try to deny it."
On David Cameron:
Before I am prepared to vote for him I want to know much more about his beliefs. I can’t say that I’m very reassured by his last four years in parliament
Ditto. His campaign has soared on the back of being young, presentable, and delivering a rhetorically interesting speech. There remains a question of substance about his campaign. Severral people have now noted the clash between his modernisation pitch and some of his more old-fashioned pitches. There is a real issue over the clarity and consistency of his message. I also don't find his track record inspires me with confidence.
Now Cameron is the media favourite, he'll face intense scrutiny. That will either make him or break him. It all depends on the substance of the man.
On David Davis:
Time and again I’ve complained about his campaign’s failure to inspire.
He played safe too much. Even his speech's policies did that. As Ferdinand Mount notes in today's Telegraph, we should contrast Davis's call for more prisons with Dr Fox's call to stop the prison system failing the mentally ill. Which is the more long term - and compassionate - solution?
On Liam Fox:
Voters want authenticity as well as calculated moderation.
Agreed. That's something I really like about the good doctor. One of the things the above mentioned Newsnight focus group admired was his honesty and that he didn't sound like a politician.
On Ken Clarke:
didn’t put a foot wrong this week
I really enjoyed his speech. Much as I disagree with him on the issues, Ken is always good value. He talked good sense on the economy too.
On Sir Malcolm Rifkind:
gave a very good speech on Monday
It was a good speech made to seem better, by being the first of the day not to tell the members that they were "crap" (as Simon Hoggart puts it). It could also have been given at any time in the last twenty years. That was it's major failing.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 07 October 2005 at 11:11
Are you really saying Editor that Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind don't have 'principled' views on Iraq? Both made them absolutely clear when it was very unfashionable in the Conservative party to do so.
Liams views on Iraq are by far the biggest obstacle for me to ever vote for him.
Posted by: malcolm | 07 October 2005 at 11:14
Both made them absolutely clear when it was very unfashionable in the Conservative party to do so.
But were silent about those views this week.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 07 October 2005 at 11:15
What are you trying to say James?
Posted by: malcolm | 07 October 2005 at 11:26
Why is Ken Clarke so interested in the Sovereignty of Iraq, when he cares nothing for that of his own country?
Posted by: EU Serf | 07 October 2005 at 11:28
That both men made the tactical decision to backpedal on their more controversial views. Obviously.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 07 October 2005 at 11:29
I saw Fox's appearance at the make poverty history meeting where he was also pretty good. Especially when talking about promoting project based aid and highlighting the shockingly bad EU's attempts at development.
BUT
His speech did not strike me as going down that well. His own band of leaflets were struggling to give out the pledge cards and I think his address was flattered by a conference that needed cheering up after a poor David Davis.
Fox wants to be a compassionate conservative but while his compassionate policies (on mental illness, domestic violence and human rights) are excellent his conservatism is not. Wrapping yourself in the union jack and threatening to leave the EU is not conservatism but right wing posturing.
His conference performance was quite good, but not nearly good enough to be a real leader. He could yet be a brilliant international development or foreign secretary though.
Posted by: wasp | 07 October 2005 at 11:33
How can Liam Fox be "authentic" if he's offering "calculated moderation"?
Posted by: michael | 07 October 2005 at 11:36
It didn't say he was offering that.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 07 October 2005 at 11:37
Oh dear oh dear.James words absolutely fail me, you spend so much time thinking the absolute worst of people.
I think your hatred of Clarke so blinds you to rational debate Serf.Clarkes reasons for being against the Iraq war are twofold.1 Because of the lies were told to persuade the country to go in.And 2 because that strategically our intervention would make the situation worse.I believe that he is right on both counts.
Posted by: malcolm | 07 October 2005 at 11:40
Malcolm: Yes, KC and MR have principled views on Iraq certainly. But KC has been willing to put aside his once principled views on Europe. I stand by my suggestion that LF has set out the bravest and clearest positions.
Michael: I was suggesting that LF was authentic - others might be calculated moderates.
Posted by: Editor | 07 October 2005 at 11:41
Oh dear oh dear.James words absolutely fail me, you spend so much time thinking the absolute worst of people.
Oh please. It's not "thinking the worst" of someone to suggest that they might have put their more controversial ideas on the backburner for the duration of conference week. Or did you expect Ken Clarke to spend his speech talking about the EU and Iraq?
And 2 because that strategically our intervention would make the situation worse
What nonsense. The US/UK administration after Sadaam was deposed made things worse by disbanding the police and army as part of the programme of de-Ba'athisation. It's the failures post-war that are to blame.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 07 October 2005 at 11:46
I have to say, I used to be a big Ken Clarke fan, but his support of (and benefit from) the tobacco industry has destroyed any sympathy in me for him. In contrast, I've never viewed myself as a right-winger, but Foxy's "sticking to his guns" approach has really appealed to me. Here's a man who actually says what he believes and doesn't change it to suit the crowd. Preaching in season and out, as it were.
Posted by: Fox Blogger | 07 October 2005 at 12:03
I see that Cornerstone have dropped Stuart from their list of supporters anyone knows why?
Posted by: Peter | 07 October 2005 at 12:14
Peter - Where did you see that about Stuart?
Posted by: Fox Blogger | 07 October 2005 at 12:38
On their site linked to this one they have the backers(MPs) on the right hand side, his name has been removed today.
Posted by: Peter | 07 October 2005 at 12:48
On their site linked to this one they have the backers(MPs) on the right hand side, his name has been removed today.
Posted by: Peter | 07 October 2005 at 12:49
On the link from this site they have all the MPs backers on the right hand side. His name has been removed.
Posted by: Peter | 07 October 2005 at 12:51
Removed three times?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 07 October 2005 at 12:52
On the link from this site they have dropped him from there list of backers mate. Know only 26 MPs.
Posted by: Peter | 07 October 2005 at 12:53
URL?
Posted by: Fox Blogger | 07 October 2005 at 12:57
http://cornerstone.blogs.com
Posted by: James Hellyer | 07 October 2005 at 13:01
I think making Cameron the favourite is perhaps the best thing for the party and the contest. I actually agree with some of what James says - the media scrutiny will make or break him. Obviously it is my hope and indeed expectation that it will make him, but it can only be a good thing for DC to have to prove himself.
Posted by: Henry Cook | 07 October 2005 at 13:11
Yes, well...fair comment Ed.
There's no denying that Cameron set the place alight, and demonstrated "star quality". Personally- as I've said elsewhere- I thought DD's speech was fine. But it wasn't electrifying, and the bar was clearly already very high.
But we certainly need to know more- much more- about what DC would actually do. I concentrated very hard during the Conference, but the only things I caught were opposition to the Euro (good), and the imposition of synthetic phonics (bad). As William Hague said on Today- we need substance. Style is not enough.
And his inexperience should be a serious concern for all of us. It's not even as if he's got some seasoned old bruiser by his side- someone who could spot the ambushes and keep the barons in check. No, this youthful monarch leads a band of untested boy soldiers. Certainly untested against those grizzled veterans who smashed their way into our homelands under Emperor Blair.
Yes, the press love him, and yes the delegates were uplifted. But we all know how constant the press are- particularly when it comes to the candyfloss world of celebrity. And we members...frankly, we're all so desperate for a hero we're ripe for doing something we may well regret in the morning.
Deep breaths- we need to keep our feet firmly on the ground.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 07 October 2005 at 13:15
It will be interesting to see how DC bears up under the scrutiny that should follow from being the media's new annointed favorite. Noteworthy that Trevor Kavanagh in the Sun has already started calling him "the boy David" - a non-too flattering echo of David Steel, and as predicted by one blogger on this site earlier in the summer.
The Editor is right though - DC needs to demonstrate some substance. What lies behind the fine-sounding and well-spoken words? His speech was undoubtedly impressive to listen to, but I am none the wiser as to what he thinks about a whole range of important issues, and I cannot remember a single phrase that resonated or captured a sense of mission (unlike "broken society" or "human rights based foreign policy").
Fox has used his shadow portfolio to change the Party's foreign policy - whatever the outcome of this contest, I hope that his series of speeches this summer will lay the foundations for Conservative & British foreign policy for the next generation.
How has Cameron used his portfolio to demonstrate what his leadership would be like?
Ferdinand Mount said that LF made "the most honourable and substantial speech of the five contenders". Cameron needs to step up to the plate on substance, as well as style. Apparently he floundered in one fringe meeting when Andrew Rawnsley asked him if had ever had to take a difficult political decision. It is his courage and conviction under fire that he now needs to demonstrate.
A Fox-Cameron final two would be a really interesting contest - and one that would generate real excitement about the Party.
Posted by: Simon C | 07 October 2005 at 13:19