Round two: The result

David Cameron: 90 (56)
David Davis: 57 (62)
Liam Fox: 51 (42)

(Round one results are in brackets).

Comments

[Stephen Newton]

As your trackback doesn't seem to be working a link:
http://www.stephennewton.com/2005/10/blue-rinses-offered-inept-unknown-by.html

[Dan]

I believe Davis got 62 and Cameron 56

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Are you backing Davis now Ed?

[Editor]

Sorry Dan - just corrected.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Are you backing Davis now Ed?

[James Maskell]

DD doesnt have the speaking abilities. Cameron stole the good words in his speech after the vote. DD speaks very stop startedly. His talk was poor.

[Editor]

I'll declare idc Jonathan but I'm a floating voter again now.

[Derek]

David Davis should not regard this result as a clear endorsement of David Cameron. There is no reason for him to quit at all. The polls do not look good, but on that basis we ought not to have fought the last three general elections!

Davis will gain a lot of respect if he sticks to his guns and battles it out. There is nothing to lose for him, and he will never have tha chance again. Liam too can be very proud of his campaign, and should have a big part to play in the shadow cabinet.

This contest is worth far more to the party in terms of publicity than it will cost. The knock on effect on membership and fundraising are also massive. No spoil sport in CCHQ should try to stop it.

[Andy Stidwill]

David Cameron must be eternally thankful that the rules weren't changed, because if they had been and all of Fox and Davis's votes were genuine, I think he would have lost, because I think we can safely say all of Fox's votes would have transferred to Davis.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

ED, I was just being naughty trying to get you to declare. Six weeks of great campaigning to look forward to.

[Sean Fear]

Most would, but I still think DC would have won under the old rules.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Nonsense Andy - a substantial chunk of the Fox vote is right-wingers who can't stomach Davis (probably Hague, IDS and comrades amongst others) and they would almost certainly swallow their differences with Cameron rather than back Davis.

[Matthew Oxley]

A dissapointing result here, and MP's have let us down. In Cameron we have a man who many people want to vote for (not particulary me personally but many others) but hardly anybody wanted Davis while so many more wanted Clarke and Fox.

Still, rules are rules and we have to take the choice we are given.

The media really do seem to go for DD:

How are going to stop the decline/rot?, Have you been running a dirty tricks campaign?, Are going to step down and avoid a member's vote?, Was there any tactical voting from the Cameron camp to you?

Whereas the media don't seem to ask Cameron the obvious question:

"Change to win", but specifically what changes?

I do think with these reporters, you have to massage their egos to keep them onside, you also have to be careful what you say, mentioning tactical voting in the first round was totally unnecessary, and I think today it turned out to be an own goal.

[Stephen Alley]

I think James M is right, but I think its also down to the questions and the behaviour from Davis that leads to the reporters' line of questioning. The media really do seem to go for DD:

How are going to stop the decline/rot?, Have you been running a dirty tricks campaign?, Are going to step down and avoid a member's vote?, Was there any tactical voting from the Cameron camp to you?

Whereas the media don't seem to ask Cameron the obvious question:

"Change to win", but specifically what changes?

I do think with these reporters, you have to massage their egos to keep them onside, you also have to be careful what you say, mentioning tactical voting in the first round was totally unnecessary, and I think today it turned out to be an own goal.

[James Maskell]

Ill endorse a candidate purely on their policies. If they dont provide real detail to their views, I wont give them my backing. Speaking abilities are important too, but for me substance is much more important than style.

[Selsdon Man]

There will one young man rejoicing at today's result. His name is Liam Fox and he plays for Inverness Caledonian Thistle in Scottish Premier League. Just imagine the stick he will taken over the past few weeks!

[henry curteis]

I believe that the eurosceptics that backed Cameron such as Douglas Carswell and Bernard Jenkin inter alia will rue the day they failed to back Fox in this second ballot.

Cameron must be a very fast talker indeed to get Michael Howard's backing, Ken Clarke's endorsement and capture votes from 'right-wingers' into the bargain. He must have convinced them all he was only smooth-talking the others.

No one really knows what Cameron stands for, of if his verbal promises are worth the paper they are written on.

Davis is weak electorally and may dent Cameron's lead but he is hardly likely to turn it over. The leadership battle has lost its fizz.

The loss of Fox might well turn into another great lost opportunity, courtesy of Conservative MP's. Dumping Thatcher. Dumping IDS, and not giving Fox a chance. That's three times they messed up in my opinion. But our MP's are all we have, bless them.

UKIP will be very happy tonight, sharpening their swords for the next Euro-fudge. Unless Carswell, Jenkin are right....anmd Cameron has eurosceptic fire in his belly.

But by backing Fox into second place they could have had their cake and eaten it - if Cmaeron wobbled they would have had a second option still in play, and the membership could have corrected their error for them.

Now they've committed the Party on the basis of little concrete evidence as to which way Cameron will play. A wing and a prayer is all they've given us. That's why they're politicians and not investment bankers.

A choice between an officer and a gentleman?

[Ted]

Just to upset Mr Maskell
Quentin Letts in the Spectator
"At this stage in the political cycle there are not many voters beseeching the opposition to publish its next manifesto. What they want is a Tory leader they like and whom they think they can trust. "
"He may have slicked hair, he may have had an elite education, but he is plausible and he is accessible. Messrs Davis and Fox, for all their numerous merits, are not so attractive to the lay public. They haven’t got ‘it’. "
"At times such as these, when a story moves fast, perceived wisdom can be mistaken for proper opinion. This is almost certainly the case with the argument that Mr Cameron has no ‘substance’ (dread word). Cheerleaders for New Labour — the Times, inevitably, was already at it on Wednesday — complain that Mr Cameron lacks a ‘strategic vision’ and that he has no idea of what he thinks about public services and other matters of government policy. Not only is this unlikely to be true, given that Mr Cameron devised much of the Tories’ manifesto earlier this year, it is also unimportant at this stage in proceedings. "
James & New Labour saying the same things?
Interesting comment tiowards the end
"Relations between the Fox and Cameron camps are interesting. The two principals are tennis partners and, being closer to one another in age, have a generational affinity....it is not impossible that Mr Fox,..., could announce his support for Mr Cameron rather than his ideological soulmate Mr Davis.

[Ted]

Meant to say I know we lost on "his" manifesto - but I have been reading his occasional Guardian Columns and it isn't all show

[James Maskell]

I can assure you me and New Labour are no friends.

The point remains, the Party cannot just rely on slick presentation, there has to be something that the membership can look at and say "I know what Mr X believes, as he has pointed it out and elaborated on it". Cameron at the moment is yet to elaborate on what he has said in the first part of the campaign. He really needs to flesh it out and explain to the Party the implications of his election. Similarly with DD, although to his credit he has fleshed it out quite well with regards to foreign policy.

In an interview, an applicant needs to have more than just good presentation. They need the skills, abilities and background to show the panel that its not just gloss, that when the settling period is over, that person can do the job properly and that the panel is aware of what is forthcoming.

[henry curteis]

TURKEYS SHOOT FOX

They call him the new Blair. I see little substance to this comparison. To be a Blair in the Conservative Party, a charming young new leader would have to appear more as a Labour MP, and talk of policies that sound sweet to Labour voters’ ears.

Cameron is the opposite. He comes from a privileged background. He appears a Tory toff. He speaks like one, and so far has declared almost no policies to appeal to anyone making this aspect hard to judge, although the few policies that have slipped out so far sound right-wing, as Alice Miles noticed.

That could of course be deliberate. Where Cameron might have much in common with Blair is an ability to hoodwink. Blair fooled Roy Jenkins and Paddy Ashdown who were both quite convinced he was going to bring in Proportional Representation, and they duly pulled their punches. Cameron has persuaded moderniser Theresa May he is ‘her’ man, and he has also persuaded Bernard Jenkin a eurosceptic , and Douglas Carswell of Direct Democracy that their programme is his programme.

Michael Howard is sponsoring him, and even Ken Clarke the arch Europhile saw fit to back his candidacy. He cannot possibly favour them all. When you have declared no policies and have no history like Cameron, it is easy to persuade gullible MP’s that you will be right behind whatever their pet project is.

They say that victory has 1000 fathers, but defeat is an orphan. Perhaps just the chance to be on the winning team was enough to draw them in, once the media started the Push Cameron campaign at the Party Conference.

The media campaign kept Cameron’s face to the fore, totally ignored Liam Fox and dumped David Davis, and lasted just over two weeks. It was uniform across all media, and was clearly orchestrated. It reminded me of the media campaign that ended the leadership of IDS. Who or what is behind these short bursts of media energy that chorale Conservative MP’s into dumping or choosing their leaders? All you can say is that the MP’s have fallen for it each time.

By eliminating Liam Fox, Cameron has been installed in an unassailable position by MP’s. Far from being obliged to carry out any promises he has made, he can now begin to ignore them Blair-style. The turkeys have after all voted for Christmas.

Henry Curteis

[malcolm]

This post seems to suggest that your personal bitterness over the demise of Fox has clouded your judgement Henry.
The fact that Blair is a liar has been proved again and again, Camerons gathering of supporters from across the spectrum of the party doesn't prove he has 'hoodwinked' anybody.

[henry curteis]

Bitterness might be a bit strong - disappointment certainly, and rightly so. A Fox Cameron play-off would have been far more interesting.

Sorry I cannot prove the above to your satisfaction, but a lot of MP's have committed themselves to Cameron based on a brief conversation that he agrees with their viewpoint (take my word?).

We have had so many leaders that ducked the key issues and that is why we have been so weak electorally for so long. Fox would have provided the resolution the party so badly needs. Cameron looks more likely to play all sides. If I'm wrong, I promise to be extremely happy to be so.

You must admit that the media campaign has been orchestrated across the boeard again as it was with IDS' assassination. Or am I the only one who thinks that? In that case I'll take a long holiday and see you in January after some much needed therapy.