Overnight, Virgin Atlantic has brought me safely back from Washington DC. I've got one jet-lagged day in London before Virgin Trains will (hopefully) transport me to Blackpool's Andy Warhol Conference. The Andy Warhol title came from Liam Fox and the fact that every leadership contender will have his fifteen minutes of fame slot on the main stage. Having been away from British TV for nine days I missed the images of the Davis and Cameron launches. I was able to write about the coherent messaging of the Cameron website but I missed the broadcast images. Friends, journalists and two MPs (neither from the Cameron camp) have told me that David Cameron gave a brilliant televisual performance. Matthew Parris, who endorsed Mr Cameron some time ago, clearly agrees:
"David Cameron has made an impressive start in the leadership contest. His campaign launch on Thursday combined presentation with passion. It needed to. Before Thursday the news media and perhaps some of his own supporters in the Conservative Party were close to writing him off. This has changed. Why? The X-factor, I think. The Tories have become hugely sensitive to appearance without quite knowing what to do about it, and can see that there is something appealing about Mr Cameron. It’s an indefinable quality and one you may think insubstantial, but I am sure voters will like the look and sound of him. He comes across well and this matters tremendously in a Tory leader. It is why, were I still a Conservative MP, I should be among his supporters."
Mr Parris is not an uncritical supporter of Mr Cameron, however, and is nervous about all the "change" rhetoric that DC and the candidates are employing:
"To hell with change: let’s hear it for continuity. To hell with turning points: let’s hear it for the old, hard road. To hell with “moments” of truth: let’s hear it for the old truths you knew already. To hell with tipping points, deadlines, starting-guns, relaunches, rebrandings, reappraisal, repentance, rebirth, reform, revelation, redemption and the whole damn lexicon of renewal. Let’s hear it for holding our nerve, holding to the things we know, and holding on. Let’s hear it for sticking to the facts. Let’s hear it for sticking to our guns."
Mr Parris believes that timeless Tory beliefs in low taxation, small government and fiscal responsibility will be demanded by the electorate once they have tired of paying taxes for Gordon Brown's bloated and supplicant state.
So why is Matthew Parris supporting Cameron again? The second section of his article cited above writes off the whole Cameron campaign message as wrong? Or has Parris not noticed that it's all about change?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 01 October 2005 at 14:25
Yes, that occurred to me as well.
That said, I do like to read an article that isn't filled with hand-ringing about how the public all hate us, and how we should be intellectually self-confident, rather than unconfident.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 01 October 2005 at 15:00
He didn't say he "was" supporting Cameron. He said that if he was still a Tory MP, Cameron would fit the profile of the candidate he would support.
Posted by: greg | 01 October 2005 at 15:38
"It is why, were I still a Conservative MP, I should be among his supporters."
Should, not would.
Posted by: greg | 01 October 2005 at 15:39
Greg, Parris is backing Cameron:
I would vote for Cameron. I believe he can do it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1695736_1,00.html
Posted by: James Hellyer | 01 October 2005 at 15:43
I suspect that Parris would have backed DD (his initial endorsement of Cameron made it clear that it was a close call) had it not been for DD's friendship with Alistair Campbell.
Posted by: Richard Allen | 01 October 2005 at 16:29
Parris has been complementary about Davis in the past, seeing his "vinegar" as a positive things.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 01 October 2005 at 16:34
Unbelieveable!Both of those mentioned above clearly are backing David Cameron.
Lets not get so petty that when people come out and back DC those who oppose him or back Davis start saying that they are only backing DC by mistake and really they mean to back another.
David Cameron may not win this leadership election but he is clearly going to be a leading player in the Conservative Party for many years to come and is very likely to be leading this party before this decade is out. Lets treat him with a bit of respect!
Posted by: Jack Stone | 01 October 2005 at 17:13
"Both of those mentioned above clearly are backing David Cameron."
Indeed they are, Jack. But in both cases we have to wonder why.
In Parris's original article he vcouldn't put his finger on a reason, while in the latest one he praises Cameron's presentation before rubbishing his the message of his entire campaign.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 01 October 2005 at 17:23
Jack, you are the last person who should be throwing around accusations of pettiness and calling for respect.
When you apologise for and/or withdraw your hugely offensive demonisation of anyone who has voted for UKIP as a right-wing bigot and stop implying that anyone who supports a candidate other than Cameron is the next Goebbels, then you can start making such statements.
Ok I'm done with my dose of sanctimoniousness {sic?} for today. Sermon over.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 01 October 2005 at 17:50
Oh come on James. That article was written on July 16th. I think today's article supercedes that.
Whoever heard of a columnist maintaining a consistent line for 2 weeks, let alone 2 months? !
Posted by: greg | 01 October 2005 at 17:55
Oh come on James. That article was written on July 16th. I think today's article supercedes that
What? You mean today's article that also supports Cameron?
His "I should" is a statement of of intent, not of possibility as you seem to want to spin it.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 01 October 2005 at 18:03
I'm not denying he is "a Cameron supporter". But it is in the sense of "that is who i would vote for in the first round (which is always a sort of beauty contest to just try and guage true levels of support outside the immediate entourage). The real contest doesn't start until round 2.
If you see later on in the article he goes on to say that he should seek an agreement with Ken Clarke. Since this would involve standing down in favour of Clarke you could equally say he is backing Ken Clarke.
Summing up - Parris would back Cameron if he thought he had the support to win. As he doesn't think this, his preference is for a Clarke-Cameron ticket.
Posted by: greg | 01 October 2005 at 18:25
I'm not denying he is "a Cameron supporter".
This reads like a denial to me:
He didn't say he "was" supporting Cameron. He said that if he was still a Tory MP, Cameron would fit the profile of the candidate he would support.
Both articles make it clear that he is supporting Cameron (if not why he is doing so). Suggesting Cameron should make common cause with Ken Clarke doesn't really change that, it's just a recognition that he thinks his preferred candidate's campaign will falter.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 01 October 2005 at 19:47
1) Matthew is great- I always enjoy reading his articles. A key part of his appeal is his romanticism- he loves the idea of handsome young Prince Cameron pulling the sword from the stone, raising it aloft, and leading us all to that Tory Camelot. And which of us can honestly say we don't yearn for it just as much?
But his romanticism is constantly struggling with his realistic practical side. And when you read the guts of his concerns about 'change', you realise that deep down he knows who's really the once and future King- a certain David Davis.
2) Is it just me, or do others sometimes get the impression that our friend Jack Stone is...well, how should one put it...an agent from the Dark Side? I only ask because if I were going to wind-up the good folk on LabourHome, or LibDem Home, I'd probably post comments very similar to his. And as anyone who reads say, PoliticalBetting, knows, this site is a regular destination for some ace wind-up merchants.
What do we think?
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 01 October 2005 at 22:49
"Is it just me, or do others sometimes get the impression that our friend Jack Stone is...well, how should one put it...an agent from the Dark Side?"
You're not alone Wat, but I'll restrain myself from making any further comment about Jack Stoned at the moment because I don't want to descend too far towards his level of argument.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 02 October 2005 at 01:13
Jack is just a lefty troll.You can insult him as much as you like and ha never ever responds.Equally most of his posts have little to do with the thread they are posted on and are usually of the Davis or Fox is a **** variety.
Is there a Labour home blog? I fancy going on there and making outlandish statements like Geoff Hoon is a man of honour or Prescott is competent.Makes a change from winding up a few of the really right wing people on this blog.
Posted by: malcolm | 02 October 2005 at 19:43
Thanks Malcolm. However just because Jack is seemingly invulnerable to insults doesn't give him the right to make outrageous slurs against other people. Honestly, it's hard to sustain a decent argument with James H when I have to fend off abuse from Jack by concentrating my ire on him instead ;-) !
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 02 October 2005 at 20:20