Is the slide in support for David Davis beginning? That's certainly what the Cameron Camp wants us to believe. They have just issued the following press release:
"FORMER DAVIS BACKER SWITCHES SUPPORT TO DAVID CAMERON
Peter Viggers, who proposed David Davis in 2001 and was one of the original 18 MPs voting for him has today announced his support for David Cameron.
Peter Viggers said, "David Davis has strengths and I was happy to nominate him in 2001. The situation now is different - events have moved on and we have to identify the person best placed to win and hold the confidence of today's and tomorrow's voters. Before deciding who to back I also wanted to speak to constituents. My considered view is that David Cameron is our man."
There are now 26 publicly declared MPs backing David Cameron."
Typical Camron: Viggers was not on the DD supporters list. 2001 yes, so it's technically true, but deliberately deceptive. Good enough for the Sunday papers, I suppose.
Posted by: buxtehude | 08 October 2005 at 14:45
deliberately deceptive
But the press release does say "who proposed David Davis in 2001 and was one of the original 18 MPs voting for him".
Where's the deception?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 08 October 2005 at 14:48
Because the deliberate suggestion is of a slide in support. As I said, not a technical lie, but deceptive spin.
Goodness knows it may happen for real soon enough.
Posted by: buxtehude | 08 October 2005 at 14:56
But Viggers was on the list of supporters declared for Davis, and on our own 'Who's backing who?' list.
It is damaging. Though I am no longer so supportive, my loyalty still lies with Davis. Were he to have transferred to some other candidate, I might not have minded so much, but it is vital to the future of the Conservative Party that Cameron does not win.
Of course, he will then be able to try again. And again. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that success in the next election, on an agenda completely different from Cameron's, is absolutely vital. The alternative, of course, is for Cameron to become to become leader and then lose the election, but we ebb too low at the moment for that to be in any way a satisfactory result. I might still prefer that to him ever winning a general election, however.
It's a pity ABC has already been taken up. Why does there seem to be no 'Anybody But Cameron' camp?
Posted by: Ronald Collinson | 08 October 2005 at 15:25
Why does there seem to be no 'Anybody But Cameron' camp?
...because most of us now want to win rather than inhabit an ideological backwater whilst throwing personal insults...
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 08 October 2005 at 15:44
... which is itself a personal insult. Well done.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 08 October 2005 at 15:51
We could do with a bit less spin in British Politics.
I hope Cameron's team haven't picked up too many bad habits from Blair.
Posted by: Bob | 08 October 2005 at 15:54
Iain, there is one candidate who can win while not being David Cameron – and that candidate is Liam Fox. Many people claim Liam is on the far right and represents the views of the Daily Mail… funnily enough many The Times readers – including myself – support him.
Liam isn’t the “same old, same old”. He has a bold and positive vision for Britain which any Briton would support: sound defence; keeping more of what you earn; less government interference in people’s lives; a sense of family, community and respect for the law; Britain controlling its own destiny.
He is also a principled candidate wanting to fix Britain’s broken society. People claim he doesn’t like modern Britain, well I’m sorry but neither do I – I don’t like the fact suicide and domestic violence are at record levels, I don’t like the fact people no longer have respect for others or the law and I don’t like the way we treat the mentally ill. Only someone who has no care for their fellow man would not want to repair Britain’s broken society.
Posted by: The Political Thinker | 08 October 2005 at 16:14
Sorry if I got it wrong but I didn't see him on the list. Perhaps the Editor updated it before putting up the post.
Ronald Collinson, why is it "vital to the Conservative Party that [Cameron] does not win"? Is it because he stands for something you think funadementally inimacle to Conservatism, or is it because he represents pure ambition without any substance, and that in the long term weakens the Conservative cause, even if it wins elections?
A socialist would regard Blair as fundamentally damaging the cause - winning an election under Blairism is not a consolation, it is a nail in the coffin of the cause. Would a Cameron victory in the same way be a nail in the coffin of Conservatism? For my part, I would rather Blair than imitation Blair; I would rather Davis than Cameron; but I would rather Cameron than Brown.
Posted by: buxtehude | 08 October 2005 at 18:31
inimical, I mean
Posted by: buxtehude | 08 October 2005 at 18:32
Peter Viggers was on the list of Davis supporters Tim had posted, but he hadn't actually declared for Davis. Hence he was removed before today's events!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 08 October 2005 at 18:34
He was removed midweek on advice from a good journalistic source.
Posted by: Editor | 08 October 2005 at 19:03
How odd. In that case, why was Davis claiming sixty-six supporters, and how could Peter Viggers ask to be removed from that list (which was reported in the Independent, although it might've been the Telegraph, or any of the other quality newspapers – I've been reading them all this week)?
...because most of us now want to win rather than inhabit an ideological backwater whilst throwing personal insults...
I would like to win, but to intend to win without principle, as evidenced by the plight of New Labour, is divisive (note that Labour's membership is disintegrating even faster than our own), disingenuous, enhances negative opinions of politicians and so causes political apathy, prevents the formation of sustainable or desireable policy, causes opinion-poll slavery, and is entirely pointless. We have no right to govern, and simply being called the 'Conservative Party' grants us no moral superiority whatsoever. That is the argument of New Labour, the argument that Labour is inherently better than the Conservative Party, regardless of its beliefs, policies or principles.
Is it because he stands for something you think funadementally inimical to Conservatism, or is it because he represents pure ambition without any substance, and that in the long term weakens the Conservative cause, even if it wins elections?
I do not think that Cameron stands for anything particularly repellent – I don't think that he stands for anything (although I cannot abide the idea of a leader who has taken drugs). Rather, you are correct that it is the fact he 'represents pure ambition without substance' that so causes me to turn from him.
While I cannot be completely certain that he truly does lack substance, all indicators point that way. His emphasis on change at a fundamental level, his vacuous speeches, and, of course, his strange shift from right-winger under Howard to cuddly 'moderniser' are all telling. All of these things hint strongly that he is just as amorphous as Blair.
It was even reported that he considered himself 'the natural successor to Blair', and his carbon-copy, Osborne, has stated that 'today's voter is more like a consumer'. Leaders like Blair and Cameron are not just damaging to their parties, they are damaging to politics as a whole. Instead of offering a vision, they tend to shift with the whim of the electorate, creating pleasing but completely useless policies.
If we do not have a discernible vision for the future, we will fail. Say that Labour and the Conservatives both maintain the Blameron (Blair/Cameron) style: then elections become popularity contests, about the ability to employ money and employ rhetoric rather than policy or improvement. What will matter to the electorate is who they feel that they can trust most, but they shall know both parties to be dissemblers. Droves of voters will become apathetic: the integrity of our democracy will be undermined.
It is all very well to use the fear of the other party, of 'the real enemy' to unite, as Tony Blair does, and Cameron may have to. I do not despise socialists; I admire them for their sincere wish to improve the country. I may disagree about means and ends, but I know that they have the best interests of Britain and her people at heart.
I would prefer to have Brown in power than Cameron. If he is New Labour, at least one party can remain as standard-bearer of the democratic process. If he is a left-winger, at least we will be governed according to principle, and our party – with its own ideals at heart – will be prepared to pick up the pieces should that government fail. In the long term, nothing good can come of Cameron.
Posted by: Ronald Collinson | 08 October 2005 at 19:26
Despite Clarke having less public supporters than Cameron, I still expect the former to outpoll the latter. Davis won't add many more, if any, whilst those who jump on the Cameron bandwagon will publicly declare for him. MPs are strangely reticent about voting for Ken.
Davis 1st
Clarke 2nd
Fox 3rd
Cameron 4th
Rifkind 5th
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 08 October 2005 at 19:41
That's my thinking too, Adrian. I also suspect Davis will do a Portillo and won't gain extra support after thefirst ballot.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 08 October 2005 at 19:46
I'm yet to see any evidence that Cameron is some horrific left-winger. The closest he has come to a "lurch to the left" is a set of aspirations which - as has been pointed out - mirror this very site's "and theory of Conservatism". I'm sure as with any Conservative our editor has been called lots of things but I very much doubt that Blairite-clone and leftist is one of them!
It seems to be generally accepted that support for our policies - whatever they are - reduces considerably once those policies are associated with the Conservative Party. People do hear us and think "same old, same old" whatever we are saying.
Cameron offers us the chance of showing the new face of Conservatism - one that enthuses people rather than repels them.
I'm a Conservative Councillor in an inner-city authority, and I work in a semi-rural northern marginal - both exactly the sort of places we have been banging on for years about failure to regain support. David Cameron can start the process of doing that.
I realise that some of you disagree with me, but the idea that any of the candidates in this race are even remotely socialist or left-wing is absurd. Renewing the party image and policy substance are not mutually exclusive. Cameron does need to flesh out on policy but your feelings on his direction are undoubtedly misplaced.
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 08 October 2005 at 20:13
Yes James, though I still reckon Davis will hobble into the member's run-off.
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 08 October 2005 at 20:13
a set of aspirations
But they're statements that are either devoid of meaning, or are so bland that nobody disagrees with them!
It seems to be generally accepted that support for our policies - whatever they are - reduces considerably once those policies are associated with the Conservative Party. People do hear us and think "same old, same old" whatever we are saying.
No they don't. They hear a policy and like it (in this case on immigration), but once they hear it's a Conserfvative policy assume it has ignoble motives.
That's because we tried to claim it was a big priority, when it wasn't, and did so in strident language that made it sound ignoble in intent (stand up Bob Spink).
the idea that any of the candidates in this race are even remotely socialist or left-wing is absurd.
A lot of people in the Labour movement would tell you that the notion that Tony Blair is socialist is absurd!
Who exactly did say Cameron was "a socialist"? Other than Bruce Anderson in yesterday's Spectator, obviously.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 08 October 2005 at 20:23
Ronald - Peter Viggers was never, I believe, on the Davis website list of supporters (unless the performed a cunning substitution which nobody noticed). The Davis website, after the ten declarations to take him to 66, listed Michael Fabricant and one other MP who wasn't on the ConservativeHome list, but who was subsequently added.
Posted by: greg | 08 October 2005 at 20:44
I'd rather see Brown in power than Cameron-Ronald Collinson.I really,really hope you're not being serious Ronald.
Posted by: malcolm | 08 October 2005 at 20:59
Ronald - Peter Viggers was never, I believe, on the Davis website list of supporters
I really don't know, as, being restricted to dial-up, I was unwilling to wait for that page to load, and so have been using this site to monitor his support. All that I know is that The Times reported that Viggers actually asked to be taken off the list, implying that he was there in the first place. The Times, of course, is not infallible.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1815053,00.html
Incidentally, how does one integrate a link into text?
I'm yet to see any evidence that Cameron is some horrific left-winger
I don't suggest that he is. The problem with Tony Blair, many Labour Party members believe, is that he has caused the party to lurch rightwards. Being right-wing, I should hardly see it as a problem to have a right-wing Prime Minister (although it would trouble me greatly if he were Labour!) The problem with Blair and Cameron, rather, is that they don't seem to believe in anything.
I can't deny that the Conservatives have an image problem, and that is partly our own fault. We must make amends, and copying Blair is not the way to do that. Whilst I do not believe that even Cameron is quite so bad as Blair, for I think that he at least might not have committed the terrible infringements of civil rights that Blair has (but what evidence do I have of that?), they share the problem that they more-or-less fit the mould of the untrustworthy politician fairly exactly.
I am afraid, Malcolm, that I am being serious. It is possible that Brown might ruin the country, I suppose (but we have survived much worse), and possible that another term in opposition might ruin the party (though I have too much faith in it to believe that). If Cameron won a general election, it would be seen to be a vindication of his insubstantial words, and the Conservative Party would then be truly wounded. 'Conservative', in the mouth of David Cameron, is only a word.
Hopefully, it will not come to this. I still believe, despite present indicators, that Cameron will be defeated. Even if he is not, it may be possible for internal pressure to direct down a conservative cause.
Why do you hate Brown so much? I should hope that we, unlike Tony Blair, do not believe that people who disagree with me are the 'enemy'.
Of course, I could be wrong. But, as detailed in my last post, all indicators point that Cameron is as bad as I suppose. I may change my mind after we've seen more of him. As it is, he is far too dangerous.
Posted by: Ronald Collinson | 08 October 2005 at 21:20
Ronald,
Incidentally, how does one integrate a link into text?
(in the example below, replace [] with <>
[a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1815053,00.html"]Times article[/a]
Times article
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 08 October 2005 at 21:26
The Times report was a direct quote lifted off this site. Editor said "Viggers asked to be removed from the list" and also that "Fabricant could not be on a supporters list because he was a whip" - which was basically what the Times report said.
Posted by: greg | 08 October 2005 at 21:27
Well, given that te site was not credited, that was very dishonest. Then again, I can hardly expect better of the Times. I distrust Murdoch greatly.
Sorry for that confusion. I can't read the bottom of that particular thread any more, for some reason. I'm not certain why, but all I get is white space after I've scrolled down a few comments.
Posted by: Ronald Collinson | 08 October 2005 at 21:30
The newspapers and BBCi have been lifting their lists of supporters from this site. In the case of the BBC, they're very tardy in doing so!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 08 October 2005 at 21:32