FT4DC

A few days after The Economist (also owned by Pearson) endorsed David Cameron, the FT has done the same.

A leader in today's newspaper concludes that Liam Fox's 'broken society' message is too gloomy and that he is not a candidate 'in tune with modern Britain'.  David Davis is ruled out for being "unfocused" on policy and for failing to inspire his own party at Blackpool.  Ken Clarke would "uncontrovertibly [be] able to give the government a tough time and to challenge Gordon Brown's claims of economic genius" but he his rejected by the FT because he does not recognise the need for a "modernisation agenda".

That leaves David Cameron:

"David Cameron's conference speech showed him in touch with contemporary concerns in a way that none of the other candidates managed. His public persona is attractive and approachable, and his message is one of optimism. He has already attracted the attention of voters alienated by political posturing and yah-boo politics.  Yet he, too, has a weakness: a shortage of experience. He has held no significant front-bench positions, nor led in a parliamentary debate... The Tories need a leader who grasps the way that Britain has changed and can formulate ideas about how a modern Conservative party should respond. He lacks the experience that would make him a shoo-in for the post. But he has shown himself to be the only candidate who understands the challenge of repositioning the Conservative party for the 21st century."

Comments

[Coffee Monster]

The campaign has been going for over 5 months and people still can't spell David Davis' name correctly. Not a good sign for him but I feel the statement "On policy he is unfocused" is a little harsh, especially as they go on to praise Cameron.

By the way, in case you missed it, Scotland on Sunday also endorsed Cameron yesterday:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/leaders.cfm?id=2096552005

I think all the newspapers will, possibly with the exception of the Associated Newspapers stable.

[Wat Tyler]

Yes, well...the pink'un. No surprise there, other than for DC's (possible- who really knows?) Euroscepticism.

I used to read the FT every day to find out what was really going on the world. But I gave that up some time ago- along with many of their other readers.

And as for Davis being "unfocused" on policy...just because the centrist statist FT doesn't LIKE the choice/competition agenda for the public services doesn't actually mean it's unfocused.

Ah, well. Such is life.

[wasp]

I don't think Davis' big problem is his policies its that he's IDS with hair. Right ideas but bloody useless.

[henry curteis]

When the Economist and the FT both back a candidate, along with wall to wall coverage in all the main organs of the media, if I was an MP that alone would be sufficient for me to decide not to back David Cameron.

The media want the weakest or most malleable candidate that they believe they can shape. MP's caved in to media pressure and got rid of IDS, but this time they must make a stand.

We all know who controls the media and they are no friends of the Conservative Party. In fact what better opponent than a privileged toff. Ordinary voters who have abandoned Labour will always stop short of backing a toff. Cameron is Blair's candidate of choice which is why he has had wall to wall media backing from all quarters since the Party Conference.

Do we really want Blair choosing the Conservative's next leader?

[alexw]

Whilst I have some sympathy with henry's viewpoint: we should have a leader who shapes the agenda rather than follows it, good media relations is vital to the success of any modern Prime Minister. Both Thatcher and Blair understand this, and both reaped electoral hat-tricks as a result. In particular, Cameron is looking like the best candidate to woo Murdoch. The Davisites should take stock and look what happened to IDS, who suffered from continual and fatal pillorying in the bulk of the press.

[henry curteis]

In today's (October 17th 2005) 'Man of Substances' - TIMES Lord Rees Mogg states his belief that both Conservative MP's and Conservative Members will select David Cameron. The reason he gives is that Conservatives hope that in Cameron they will find a winner - the hope based on his competent Blackpool speech, and massive newspaper coverage of the fact he refuses to deny the use of hard drugs. LRM concedes that David Cameron's policy platform is rather bare - and in fact no one has much idea of what he does actually stand for.

I would like to challenge the assumption that Cameron is a winner in the making. First newspaper/media coverage can make anyone look like a winner for a fortnight. When, as is the case here, it is so plainly orchestrated with the whole of the media simultaneously blanking all other candidates, and failing to mention any policy issues at all, the genuineness of this media fawning is hardly credible. It is well known that the media are fed 'narratives' which they are expected to follow if they wish to be considered favourably for news releases etc. The narrative for this pre-choice fortnight is quite clearly 'dump Davis, balnk Fox, promote Cameron'. It seems that even Ken Clarke is party to the 'promote Cameron' orchestration. Why LRM believes that Conservative MP's or Party Members will observe the media narrative quite so easily, I am not sure.

The point LRM made was concerned with the electability of Cameron. Why does he so easily follow the media lead on this? Cameron is a toff - a privileged public school background. He has a toff's voice, and he has toff's attitudes, however hard the media have tried to obscure thse recently. The modernisers agenda is to some extent correct. The Conservatives need to look more normal, more everyday and less privileged. How will Cameron caome even close to meeting this specification - backed up by Osborne, Soames, Letwin and others. This lot are the ultimate turn-off for the floating, Labour-abandoning voter.

LRM does state that Fox is the most underestimated candidate. His image is exactly right for a modernising agenda. His social reforming policies are spot on. His willingness to face up to EU corruption too is exactly what appeals to Conservative MP's and voters. I won't attempt to make forecasts and I admire LRM's bravery in that regard, but I question his political savoir-faire. Fox has more of the makings of an ELECTION winner than Cameron.

[wasp]

Cameron is an election winner because people like him. His background doesn't matter.

The word most used to describe Fox by my friends is "smarmy". Not a winner.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I have to say I'm disappointed (although not particularly surprised) that somebody with the experience and standing of Lord Rees-Mogg has joined in with the Cameronite chorus peddling this fib that Cameron is an election winner because he can reach out beyond our traditional support.

Anybody who has done their research can see that he failed spectacularly in this regard when faced with his only real electoral test to date - Stafford 1997, which shouldn't even have been a test considering it was a Conservative safe seat (not a Labour marginal as his cheerleaders at the Times have been claiming).

As I posted elsewhere, losing that safe seat for the first time in 52 years demonstrated not only that Cameron was unable to attract new voters but also that he lost a lot of Conservative voters too.

I can understand why people make the argument that Cameron's loss was part of the general swing against the Conservatives but the swing against Cameron was greater than the general swing against the Conservatives so in terms of percentage, he lost more voters than the Conservatives did in what was a very dismal performance for the Conservatives.

The result highlights that Cameron:

- was unable to attract new voters;
- was unable to hold on to floating voters;
- lost the support of long-standing Conservative voters.

He was parachuted into the ultra-safe seat of Witney in 2001, so his performances there can't really be considered a litmus test of his electoral capability - but the fact that he bombed so spectacularly in Stafford can be used as a litmus test and exposes the myth that Cameron will be able to reach out to new voters as just that - a myth.

[Selsdon Man]

Stafford was badly affected by boundary changes. Bill Cash moved to Stone as a result. Given the catastrophic result in 1997, DC's result was fairly typical of seats where Labour had stuffed us on boundaries.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Stafford was badly affected by boundary changes. Bill Cash moved to Stone as a result. Given the catastrophic result in 1997, DC's result was fairly typical of seats where Labour had stuffed us on boundaries."

Yes, well, putting that spin to one side, if Cameron had the sort of appeal that his cheerleaders claim he has, then he would not have bombed so spectacularly. The voters who did not vote for him then are the voters we need to appeal to now if we are to win the next election and his failure then clearly does not bode well in this regard.

As an aside, there is one candidate in this leadership election who won a seat from Labour and has been firmly ensconced {sic?} there ever since - Ken Clarke, the candidate who opinion polls have consistently shown to be the most popular Conservative amongst the electorate as a whole.

[Sean Fear]

Regardless of what one thinks of Cameron, the fact that he had a swing against him precisely in line with the national average against Conservatives in 1997 tells us nothing about his electoral appeal. *No* Tory would have held Stafford in 1997.

[EU Serf]

This would of course be the same FT that has modernised (Soft left statist and Europhile) and has proceeded to lose customers at a steady rate.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Regardless of what one thinks of Cameron, the fact that he had a swing against him precisely in line with the national average against Conservatives in 1997 tells us nothing about his electoral appeal. *No* Tory would have held Stafford in 1997."

Yes but surely if he had appeal beyond traditional Conservative voters, as his cheerleaders constantly claim, at worst the swing against him would have been less than the general swing against the Conservatives? Not only was this not the case, the anti-Cameron swing was actually greater, in terms of percentage, than the national swing against the Conservatives. At a national level, the swing against the Conservatives was 10.5%. In Stafford, the swing against Cameron was 10.7%. Now I know that a 0.2% difference will probably seem trifling {sic?}, but bear in mind that a 0.1% overall swing in our favour earned us over 30 seats at the election and that 0.2% of the national vote at the last election was equivalent to 54,298 votes, which is a not insignificant number when you consider how many wafer-thin majorities there are in marginal seats across the country.

[henry curteis]

Stafford 1997 was a very bad performance by Cameron.
The Lib Dem vote was weak in Stafford, and the Referendum Party too was below the average for the area, and yet Labour surged by well above the national average.
The word from the Constituency is that Cameron only campaigned in the strong Conservative areas, and did not attempt to campaign at all in the strong Labour wards.

I guess he knew he could not appeal across Britain's class divide and he was right. Nothing's changed. He's the wrong guy to lead the party. Fox has it. Cameron doesn't.

[Selsdon Man]

"Yes, well, putting that spin to one side, if Cameron had the sort of appeal that his cheerleaders claim he has, then he would not have bombed so spectacularly."

I am not spinning4DC - merely trying to be fair like Sean.

"The word from the Constituency is that Cameron only campaigned in the strong Conservative areas, and did not attempt to campaign at all in the strong Labour wards."

That is very vague, Henry. Can you be more specific about your sources for such an assertion?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I am not spinning4DC - merely trying to be fair like Sean."

It is spin - you're attempting to put the Stafford 97 result down to boundary changes rather than Cameron's lacklustre performance and failure to win over voters.

[Derek]

Do we have any clear indication of DCs policy regarding the repatriation of our fishing rights from the EU? This has been a policy commitment by the previous three leaders and it would be nice to know. It would be a sort of litmus test, by which we could judge his eurosceptic credentials.

[alexw]

DVA: Bear in mind that Stafford 97 also suffered from its incumbent chicken-running (Bill Cash) and therefore the loss of the personal vote. A 0.2% swing above the national average is therefore hardly unsurprising - and the rot about a 0.1% gaining us 30 seats is just poor. The swing to us in the recent election was 3.0%: swing is calculated as (Party A's loss - Party B's gain)/2.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"A 0.2% swing above the national average is therefore hardly unsurprising"

I assume you meant to say hardly surprising? Well, I'd say it is for somebody who claims he can reach out beyond our traditional support and attract new and floating voters, in which case the swing against should, at worst, have been less for Cameron than it was against the party.

"the rot about a 0.1% gaining us 30 seats is just poor. The swing to us in the recent election was 3.0%: swing is calculated as (Party A's loss - Party B's gain)/2."

You're right - I was quoting the wrong figures and the wrong statistic. What I should have said was an increase of 0.6% in share of the vote gained us over 30 seats.