Questioning David Cameron

The media has all sorts of faults.  At least three of them have been on evidence in Blackpool over the last few days:

• There has been over-interpretation.  At the weekend David Davis was portrayed as the more-than-likely victor.  Today his campaign is seen to be in crisis with Cameron riding high.
• The spectator sport of over-interpretation easily mutates into active agitation.  The journalistic pack loves to become involved in a story and scenting blood they are now chasing every possibility for the young David to topple the Davis Goliath.
• There has also been an excessive personalisation of coverage.  Little policy has been discussed.  Coverage has been biased towards considerations of age, looks, experience, charisma and oratorical skills.

The last 72 hours have undoubtedly been bad for David Davis but a few days should pass before an authoritative damage report can be made.  He certainly needs to re-jig his campaign.  This blog’s ‘Good Week, Bad Week’ has often complained about the DD campaign’s failure to inspire.  Yesterday’s wooden performance followed similar delivery problems on the fringe.  Just as Team Bush tried to minimise the number of presidential debates with John Kerry, I predict that the Davis camp will attempt to minimise the number of opportunities that party members will have to see Davis ‘hust’ with his final round opponent.

Blackpool’s Imperial Hotel and Wintergardens were alive with speculation about defections from the Davis camp.  David Davis needs to abandon his safety-first strategy or he does risk a haemorrhage of support.  He should begin by reshuffling his campaign team.  Three areas for overhaul stand out:

• His speech appeared to be written by a committee.  He desperately needs a speechwriter who can help him to find his voice.
• Clarke-ites and T-shirted Cameron supporters were leafleting the conference every day and delegates were handed a fresh newsletter every morning.  Why didn’t Team Davis organise anything comparable?
• His inner circle of parliamentary supporters is probably the weakest link in his set-up.  Any camp MPs who break the ‘Don’t speak ill of another Conservative’ commandment – that DD blazenly decreed yesterday – should be fired.

‘Not speaking ill of another Conservative’ should not preclude Team DD launching a rigorous examination of David Cameron’s beliefs, however (assuming a DD-DC contest).  DC’s Tuesday speech was well-delivered and its compassionate theme compelling.  But it lacked substance.  Team DD could recover its confidence if it can expose David Cameron as having the wrong views on such issues as drugs and licensing and ill-thought-out views on Europe.  The questioning of DC will either prove that he is too inexperienced to become Tory leader or the testing will prove him worthy of the Tory crown.

Comments

[Elena]

I just think that in a leadership contest such as this one you really can't afford to slip up at such a high-profile time.

That's exactly what Davis did yesterday. Now, I know that the papers are over-exaggerating it, and trying their hardest to champion Cameron, but I don't think it can be denied that Davis was poor. I think the new leader needs to be able to *inspire.* And Davis certainly showed he wasn't up to the job.

Let's face it, with all the negitivity swilling around in the papers, it's likely to affect his standing in terms of the membership, who've had it drilled into them that they are *not* to elect another IDS under any circumstances. One member on the news last night even said Davis was like "IDS with hair."

Now, I know that's over-exaggerating things, and the Davis campaign still has the ability to re-invent itself and its candidate - look at Cameron for an example! But I really think that a Davis v Cameron runoff will only produce one result: a Cameron victory.

[Richard Allen]

David Cameron has many flaws that can be exposed and they all centre around the simple fact that he doesn't seem to have any clear political ideology or core beliefs. While his speech was well delivered there was nothing he said that convinced me that he was a conservative. There is nothing about a Cameron leadership that appeals to me. I'd go as far to say that I would rather see Ken Clarke as leader.

[Samuel Coates]

At least Clarke is looking to be out of the dual - I look forward to a DD-DC contest.

I still like Fox, I wonder if most of his supporters would go to DC or DD in the event of the above scenario?

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I agree with the sentiments about the media getting carried away - though that is how things go in modern political life.

Everyone has to accept that Cameron delivered an exceptional speech. (I only wish I could do similarly!). Critics could criticise the content and thats part of a healthy political debate. Conversely I don't accept that the Davis speech was as awful as some have suggested. I actually quite liked the content as did a lot of people.

What I find extremely interesting is that suddenly one speech counts for more than a parliamentary record. That to me is more worrying. Davis is suddenly portrayed of mediocre at best - in spite of his record in the Home Office brief?

I just dont accept that - just as I wouldnt accept that assessment for any of the candidates. This leadership election has a long way to go - and it would be a fool who writes of the Davis campaign at this stage.

What I would like to see from all the candidates is a commitment that if they were unsuccessful, and if asked, they would be prepared to serve under the new leader.

"What I would like to see from all the candidates is a commitment that if they were unsuccessful, and if asked, they would be prepared to serve under the new leader."

Ken Clarke was asked about this yesterday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4312646.stm

"Mr Clarke said he did not know whether he would serve on the Tory front bench if he failed to win the leadership contest.

It would depend on whether he was asked, what job he was offered and whether he thought he would be "parked" on the front bench for six months before being fired.

The former chancellor said William Hague had asked him to be his deputy leader after the 1997 leadership election - but he had not been asked again since.

Mr Clarke said he had served on Michael Howard's advisory council with ex-leaders Mr Hague and Iain Duncan Smith.

"He received a bewildering range of advice but mine was very good," he joked. "

[Samuel Coates]

Is Howard now a member of the very same council?

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Not sure if thats a yes for Ken - but interesting.

[greg]

"I agree with the sentiments about the media getting carried away - though that is how things go in modern political life"

That is true, although i found that much of the written press was actually pretty balanced. Nick Robinson on the BBC, however ...

Shockingly poor. Did you see Tim Bell having a bit of a rant about him on the Daily Politics?

[Jonathan Sheppard]

My feeling is that it hs just overstated everything. Mind you I could be proved wrong.

I seem to remember Susan Kramer of the Lib Dems having a nightmare when standing for London Mayor and forgetting her speech completely (if my memory serves me correctly).. now she's an MP. But thats the Lib Dems for you!

[AnotherNick]

Will you take a break from bashing Cameron! Quite clearly he does have beliefs, and suggestions he doesn't are like a broken record on this blog.

The media have been harsh on Davis this week, but they have seen that Cameron has stepped out of the shadows in magnificant style.

Yes we need substance, but we haven't had a leader who can conect with people or the media for years, so lets not downplay what Cameron is good at.

Cameron talks about family, he talks one nation when talking about urban renewal and his buddy George is talking flater tax. So if you think Labour can do better vote for a right wing leader of the oppostion. But if you think a moderniser with Conservative views who is as good a public speaker now, let alone in 4 years time, as many a current world leader.

To alter a much mentioned phrase
"vote Davis get Brown"
Vote Cameron and be part of the Governing party of this country.

[Mark Fulford]

AnotherNick is absolutely right.

Cameron certainly does have beliefs and, unlike other runners, his whole speech came across as relevant. He hit chords left, right and center.

Policy is never fixed and there's four years to work on getting exactly what you want. The big decision now is to find a leader that can deliver election victories. Of the bunch, Cameron is that man.

[James Hellyer]

Quite clearly he does have beliefs, and suggestions he doesn't are like a broken record on this blog.

What beliefs? He converted to "modernisation" on May 6th; before that his voting record suggests no such commitments or beliefs. His political statements are high on aspiration and low on detail and consistency.

Looking at the policies on his website, it's all too easy to see his hand before the slender '05 manifesto.

[Edgar Malloy]

Good point about Davis and his lack of a speechwriter. Who are the main speechwriters on the Tory scene? And who do Cameron and Clarke have?

[James M]

What I cannot understand is why DD did not use the autocue system like Howard.

Clearly he suffered from having to read his speech all the time. If you knoww you are a weak speaker, you should be maximising every possible trick to reduce the challenge.

But a new script writer may be of help too.

[James Hellyer]

If you know you are a weak speaker, then you hire a good speechwriter who can play to your strengths, and practice like hell. Davis knew this was coming and still fluffed it.

[Elena]

I don't think that concrete policy at this stage is the key to winning leadership elections. It's more to do with how you present yourself as a leader, and what 'broad' issue focus you would seek to emphasise.

Cameron looked like he had the vision to be a compassionate, modernising Conservative. Davis, whilst heavy on the policies, looked uncharismatic and unlikely to win back the lost voters. Just my view, of course.

[buxtehude]

I'm still supporting DD but almost feel it's now a vain hope. I don't care that he's not capable of a great speech, but I do care that his lousy campaign team let him deliver a poor speech. Frankly, if DD doesn't sack his useless, pompous, nasty Westminster team that he doesn't deserve to be leader of the Conservative Party. If he thinks they are good enough, then he's not good enough. If he can't find better, then Cameron is better.

Of course Cameron's team are fab. I don't like what they stand for, but my goodness they do it beautifully. Every detail is prepared. Every trick is perfected.

It's no use saying that it's all vacuous and facile. The answer would be to be as good or better PLUS having substance.

Here's the test: what have they got ready for the Sunday papers? If, as I suspect, the answer is 'nothing', then I give up. If it's just another couple of names, a few poor souls who have had their arms twisted, then I still give up. Either they come up with something impressive, or they should stop wasting our time.

[Mark Fulford]

James, I (like most other people) am not going to compare Cameron's pre May 6 vote record to what he's saying now. And in any event, to change beliefs is not a crime. I'm trying to think of conviction politicians who never change... Tony Benn springs to mind. Very likeable people, but utterly unelectable.

I didn't notice more detail in any other candidate's speech (or web site).

Did you see that our "vacuous" spat made Guadian p2 yesterday? I think it was your words that drew their attention.

[malcolm]

Do you really think that DD was good as Blunketts shadow Jonathan.Personally I thought he allowed Blunkett to get away with murder.Remember Blunkett was not brought down as he should have been by DD but by the press.
DD still has an opportunity but he's going to have to be a little less predictable than he has been to date and really show members that he has the beating of Blair and Brown.If he can't do that then it is good that we have seious alternatives now.

[James Hellyer]

Well, it you want to ignore the shallowness of his modernisation credentials and the glaring inconsistencies in his policy platform...

So what was in the Gruniad and the story online?

[malcolm]

Sorry about the typo that should read serious!
I think on a 'serious' note that we can all be glad that this conference was far,far better than I suspect any of us thought it would be.

[NickB]

Is a voting record really the litmus test of the political beliefs of someone who was, until recently, a fairly junior opposition frontbencher? I would also question whether now is the time for policy detail, which can so easily become hostage to fortune (eg Davis's pledge to repay Brown's pensions tax grab). This may sound heretical to those for whom ideological purity is valued above all else, but I believe we are sometimes in danger of over-emphasising the political and philosophical differences between the candidates. At the end of the day they are all, by choice, Conservatives who (with the possible exception of Clarke and the EU) could be expected to pursue broadly similar objectives in government. Whoever wins the leadership will have a formidable array of intellectual firepower at their disposal, and the likes of Fox, Osbourne and Willetts will surely play a significant role in their policy development.

[James Hellyer]

Is a voting record really the litmus test of the political beliefs of someone who was, until recently, a fairly junior opposition frontbencher?

No, but his voting record, his involvement in the last election campaign and the dramatic changes in emphasis in his leadership campaign all indicate the sort of politician he is. I have no sense at all that he's genuine. It was telling that the moment his campaign came under pressure, he lurched to the right (a worrying sign, as Michael Portillo noted).

I would also question whether now is the time for policy detail

Nobody is asking for that. For consistency and signs of principle, yes. We need to see something other than a flair for PR and the ability to speak without notes for twenty minutes.

This may sound heretical to those for whom ideological purity is valued above all else...

I think that's just a phantom argument. I don't think there is a Conservative ideolgy in the sense of coherent operating system of beliefs. But there are principles - some of which are more important than others. I can't see where Cameron stands on many of them...

[Mark Fulford]

James, every candidate has got something I'd have to ignore. I don't have as big a problem with Cameron's evolving policies as I do with, say, Fox's hang-up on patriotism.

[James Hellyer]

Well, the "hang up on patriotism" isn't a problem in my opinion. In fact it's very much in tune with current events. Commentators on the right and left, most notably Trevor Phillips the Chairman of the CRE, are looking for ways to emphasise what unites us as a nation, not what divides us. Patriotism is part of that.

But anyway, what did the Gruniad say and is it online?