"Hope over experience": The Economist endorses David Cameron

"If only the Conservatives could call on the organisational skill of a machine politician and former whip like Mr Davis, the blokeish appeal and destructive oratory of Mr Clarke and the charm and fresh allure of Mr Cameron.

But they cannot and so the party must choose. Mr Fox lacks stature. Mr Davis is short of the charm he needs to shed the party's charge of nastiness. Mr Clarke, virtually absent from politics for the past eight years, lacks a claim to lead—and renewal is hardly the word for a politician who has yet to show that his policies and persona have moved beyond the 1990s.

Which is why the party should elect Mr Cameron. True, at 39 his moment has come too early. Although he has years of experience as a political adviser, he has much to learn about politics in the front line. But he has intelligence, charisma and (it seems) integrity. And he alone has shown that he has come to terms with New Labour—that he knows which parts of it voters like and which to jettison. That makes him best placed to give the Tories hope and Britain an opposition."

With those words The Economist has endorsed David Cameron.  The magazine accepts that David Cameron's inexperience makes him a risky choice.  Furthermore, it notes that he has passed no parliamentary or party test that can be compared to those met by Tony Blair before he became Labour leader.  But, The Economist argues, the Tories do not have to make the policy changes that New Labour needed to.  The Tory problem is not policy - it is basic likeability.  And... David Cameron is likeable, it thinks: "Tory activists spotted this much more quickly than did the MPs, who worry about his inexperience and are prone to understandable envy about the preferment that has assisted his rise".

Comments

[Matthew Oxley]

The one thing the article clearly gets incorrect is that Fox lacks stature, with the news that Fox (brought to you by Conservativehome) now has 4 more declared MP's, 10 more very likely and another group of about a dozen who are reasonably likely to back him he should be given much more consideration when thinking about which choice is the right one.

[EU Serf]

I don't agree totally with the Economist article but they do make one very important point. We do not need a Clause 4 moment, as some of our leaders are claiming. There is nothing wrong with our policies, only our image.

[greg]

Tony Blair's fight over clause 4 had nothing to do with policy. It WAS everything to do with image.

[Wat Tyler]

The Economist was never going to support DD or Fox. Sadly, they long ago abandoned their proud history of iconoclastic laissez faire, and if we'd taken their advice in 1975 we would have kept Ted and rejected Maggie.

As I've posted elsewhere, my latest 3 year subscription will be my last.

[Sean Fear]

I still enjoy reading the Economist from time to time, but one could easily get the impression that its British articles were written by Tony Blair - and maybe they are.

[Michael Smith]

"Tory activists spotted this much more quickly than did the MPs, who worry about his inexperience and are prone to understandable envy about the preferment that has assisted his rise"

It's become a weird tic of some Cameroonies to blame any opposition to Dave on chippiness - c.f. the comment above. Whereas it worries me a little that his colleagues - the people who might be supposed to have spent the most time around him, working with him and observing his qualities at first hand - aren't necessarily all that enthusiastic.

For all I know he may be fine but there's something about this whole 'Cameron Mania' thing that strikes me as a bit creepy.

[John G]

I have to admit that this morning is the first time I've been disappointed in this blog. Yesterday Ken Clarke wrote an article in the Telegraph about his policy platform which was an illuminating piece, although still light on policy when compared to Davis.

I scroll down and see that the Cameron and Davis articles in the Telegraph spawned a massive post from the Editor, examining them in detail. Clarke only received a link in the middle of an article about David Davis.

I know the tobacco issue is relevant, but recent posts certainly suggest an agenda bias against Ken.

[wasp]

The economist is absolutely right. Cameron is the only candidate that seems to realise why the Conservatives have lost 3 elections.

Until the party admits to an addiction to the lunatic fringe of politics then it will stay there.

Even when he was getting battered on Question Time he was still getting a lot of applause, watching him go up against Mark Oaten was very telling.

Not electing Cameron would be taking real risks with the party's already poor health.

[Selsdon Man]

Cameron performed very well last night in difficult circumstances. He did not get rattled and stuck to his guns. The audience clearly warmed to him and that was in the NE where our support is low. Mind you, Ben Bradshaw and Mark Oaten gave him a very easy time. Perhaps DC's charm makes him difficult to attack.

[Jack Stone]

Not eelecting Cameron would be a real risk to the party`s already poor health.
Not electing David Cameron would not only make it seem that the party wern`t really interested in winning it would also make the party look like an utter laughing stock!

[wasp]

Jack Stone you are bang on.

But this is not a party that has a track record of doing things in its best interest.

[henry curteis]

interesting that the Economist admits that MP's have reservations about Campbell - sorry Cameron.

Fox has no stature, the Economist claims - four words is all they can afford him. With such bias, stature will ideed be hard to acquire. Shame he hasn't got a past history of corruption or drug addiction. The Economist would then have to give him full coverage.

I've heard about economical with the truth, but is the economist now economical with morality? New Economics is upon us.

[Derek]

Liam Fox is a man of great integrity and stature. He has given a very clear list of the policies he wants to follow. His campaign has been slow to gather momentum, but now he seems to be coming through at the right time. He has the right blend of youth and experience, and his modest determination is likely to appeal to the floating voter. Cameron is also an outstanding man and should get a senior post in any Conservative cabinet.

[Editor]

Well said Derek. Someone who has remembered that we are all Conservatives!

[Simon]

Liam Fox is too short to be prime minister - simple as that. You can't have the US president walking in a trench next to him at joint press conferences. Unfortunate, as he's very talented and will be an excellent cabinet minister, but we live in the media age.

That goes for most of the candidates, especially DD - good for one of the great offices of state, just not a PM. Cameron looks and carries himself like a prime minister; he just does and you can't get away from it. In 1992, Tony looked so much more the part than Gordon, that it was a no-brainer.

[Simon]

Liam Fox is too short to be prime minister - simple as that. You can't have the US president walking in a trench next to him at joint press conferences. Unfortunate, as he's very talented and will be an excellent cabinet minister, but we live in the media age.

That goes for most of the candidates, especially DD - good for one of the great offices of state, just not a PM. Cameron looks and carries himself like a prime minister; he just does and you can't get away from it. In 1992, Tony looked so much more the part than Gordon, that it was a no-brainer.

[James Maskell]

There have been mentions of the need for a Clause 4 moment. What would be the Conservatives version of it?

[greg]

Something to do with Candidate selection IMO

[alexw]

Fox is a capable orator, a decent politician, a solid Conservative and a man of integrity and charm. Unfortunately, his radical-Right policy platform means that he would make our party (even more) unelectable. Basing a strategy on that which worked for the US Republicans is electoral suicide: the British electorate are less religious and less right-wing. I sincerely hope that Fox gets a senior position in the Shadow Cabinet, but please please keep him away from the leadership.

[Matthew Oxley]

I must agree with the very sound words of Henry, and also Derek.

I also disagree with the comments about Fox being too short - what on earth!?

Liam Fox has great integrity and will put a kind face on any policies, even the right wing ones. He is the only man the people will believe to be a 'real' person.

I also some of us are being typical tories when we think of Cameron, in not realising how people really think when looking at Politicans. Cameron is almost a double of Tony Blair, in so many ways - some of us think that is good, but let's remember how bad the last 8 years of Bliar have been, the public will look at this young fresh-faced guy and say 'Tried that, didn't work', they'll see through the fake rehersed Interviews and we'll lose more votes because of it.

The next election will see people looking for a more straightforward simple bloke - Both Kennedy and Brown have that.

[James Maskell]

My fear with Fox is that we are going to have more of the same. Weve had our fill of right wingers...maybe its time for a change and go for someone on the centre ground. Labour's taken the right wing and the public are tiring of that.

[Wat Tyler]

Simon says put your hands on your head. But Doc too short to be PM? Not quite true- see http://daviddavisleader.blogspot.com/2005/10/height-issue.html

[James Hellyer]

My fear with Fox is that we are going to have more of the same. Weve had our fill of right wingers...

I'm fed up with people asserting that we've been running the party on a right wing platform. Where was it? Michael Howard removed the party's tax cutting profile (a totem for the "modernisers"), he didn't offer to reduce public spending, he matched Labour's spending pound for pound and then upped it, he wanted to make all hospitals have foundation status...

What exactly was right wing about that?

[Mark O'Brien]

In addition to what James Hellyer has said, what exactly is right wing about this neo-Keynesianism of New Labour which sees 40% of GDP being spent by the government and 5 million jobs being in the public sector, not to mention 9 million adults who are economically inactive?

I disagree that the public is tiring of Labour being right-wing. They're fed up of Labour trying to look right-wing, but failing to live up to their campaign slogans.

[Cutting taxes win elections]

Has anyone noticed the double standards of Michael Howard?

Howard Flight, a great servant of the party, was sacked both from a Shadow Ministerial position, and (wrongly) as an MP for an indisciplined sentence.

Robert Oulds was sacked as a PPC for posing with legal weapons.

One of the other PPCs was sacked for a few unwise words.

David Cameron refuses to say that he has never taken, or indeed has no recently taken, illegal substances, including class A drugs. But is kept as Shadow Secretary State of Education.

(All best resolved by a few choice apologies methinks)