The 25% strategy

Andrew Pierce authors the following intriguing paragraphs in this morning’s Times:

“[David Cameron] has privately pledged to sacrifice some of the party’s core voters, who loathe the modernisers’ talk of inclusivity and social liberalism, in an attempt to reach out to a new generation of younger voters. He would do so by deliberately alienating the Daily Mail and its sister paper, The Mail on Sunday, whose vitriolic tone he abhors…

One leading supporter, an MP who accepts he could lose his seat because of the strategy, said: “We may, for a while, lose up to 7 per cent of our vote, taking us down to 25 per cent. But it is worth it if we can fundamentally change the party.””

Perhaps the “leading supporter” of Mr Cameron, identified by Mr Pierce, is offering a freelance opinion.  It is perfectly possible that Mr Cameron does not know of this strategy and probably does not support it.  Speculation of this kind might have been planted by Mr Cameron’s opponents but Mr Pierce is a respected journalist who is not easily duped.  In any case: What might Mr Cameron’s “leading supporter” have in mind in order to send us crashing in the polls?  A simple tonal shift - away from the vitriol pursued by what the uber-modernisers call ‘The Hate Mail’?  Or, perhaps, there are some more significant policy shifts under discussion?  More questions for Mr Cameron…

Comments

[James Hellyer]

Still no reason not to back Cameron.

Oh yes, people like being patronised and told they are judgemental and alienate people. Obviously.

[Steven Patrick]

James, if Cameron does became leader which you stop supporting the Conservative Party?

[James Hellyer]

Someone supports a political party because it is the best fit for their values. If the party changes its values so that it no longer "fits" on enough key points, I think it's unreasonable to suggest that those people would keep supporting it - never mind devoting their time and energy to campaigning for it.

If any of the leadership candidates took the party too far from what I believe in, it therefore follows that I would be less inclined to vote and campaign for that party.

Or are you suggesting that people shoud just vote for the a brand rather than according to their beliefs?

[Steven Patrick]

"Or are you suggesting that people shoud just vote for the a brand rather than according to their beliefs?"

Not at all. I was wondering, in your views on a lot of aspects of David Cameron so far, if you would stop supporting the Conservative Party the moment he became leader or wait to see how his leadership pans out.

[James Hellyer]

The point is that there is no substance to his campaign. The problem isn't that he goes against what I see as Conservative principles, it's that he doesn't seem to have any. I've read his manifesto and everything there is so bland and generalised that it could mean anything.

[Rick]

Well at least the MP for Witney that was, Shaun Woodward showed how a Tory could win a seat like St Helen's - just cross over and wear a Labour rosette and getting the backing of a Conservative Prime Minister and you can be a Labour Backbencher.

No doubt the current MP for Witney thinks he can pull the same stunt with the whole of the rump Conservative Party.............that should confuse John Bercow who is still hesitating whether to come out as a Brownie just as soon as Gordon can depose Captain Queeg.

Maybe the 2010 Election will see Cameron trapped in a Labour Coalition Government as the junior partner..........it is pretty certain that without a deus ex machina the Tories cannot get into power unaided..............that's why they are looking for another Gerald Harper

[Bob]

The point is that there is no substance to his campaign.

We're allowed to just make stuff up, now?

David Cameron has given clear policy positions on Europe (repatriate powers, entrench Parliamentary supremacy in UK law, leave the EPP), foreign affairs generally (support Iraq war, support democratisation), the economy (look at models of flatter taxation, reduce regulation), education (more school autonomy, more rigorous standards), law and order (locally accountable police), and drugs (focus on treatment as well as punishment), among other things.

You may disagree with these positions, and some will. But it's absurd to deny they exist because you haven't read them, or don't understand them.

One other thing: politics isn't all about the specifics. Sometimes it's about ideas and values, which is why real leaders can talk in broad concepts. Politicians who only deal in specifics will never be leaders.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Cllr Ian (sic) Lindley seems to have forgotten that we actually came third in Watford, behind the Lib Dems

It wasn't my list - I copied it from another forum for illustration.

[James Hellyer]

We're allowed to just make stuff up, now?

I haven't. You've only named one substantive policy (on the EPP). The rest are vague generalities - some of which aren't even Cameron's vague generalities!

Europe (repatriate powers, entrench Parliamentary supremacy in UK law, leave the EPP)

David Cameron has not given a commitment to repatriate powers. He has merely reaffirmed the status quo (that parliament is sovereign). He has not commited himself to demonstrating it - which would violate the terms of our EU membership.

What's he proposing to do? Unilaterally take back out fishing grounds and when the European Court rules against us, which it would, back down or leave the E.U.?

foreign affairs generally (support Iraq war, support democratisation)

Vague generalisations that fall foul of Goodwin's law. How, for example, does he intend to support democratisation and where does he support doing so?

the economy (look at models of flatter taxation, reduce regulation)

Looking at models isn't a policy. It's not even a direction. It's also current party practice and not the Cameron campaign's idea. He has given no commitment to lowering taxes or indication of how it would be funded.

He does say he wants to reduce regulation. He offers no idea how this will be done (especially as most originate from the EU).

education (more school autonomy, more rigorous standards)

That's a misleading generalisation. Cameron is not committed to more autonomy (indeed his "rigour agenda" goes against that. He wants to dictate more standards from the centre - see synthetic phonics).

You also cannot claim more rigourous standards as a policy, unless you are prepared to say who has a policy of LESS rigourous standards. You see, stating the obvious and unobjectionable doesn't count as a policy direction.

law and order (locally accountable police)

Massive generalisation. He's commited to scrapping the National Policing Plan, but has not said what would replace it or how he would make the police accountable.

and drugs (focus on treatment as well as punishment)

Again a massive generalisation. He's written about the need for treatment centres but has offered no coherent line on either treatment, punishment or the classification of cannabis.

One other thing: politics isn't all about the specifics. Sometimes it's about ideas and values, which is why real leaders can talk in broad concepts.

Except in this case the broad ideas and concepts are contradictory and undeveloped. They betray a lack of thought.

But I'm sure you can "make up" a reconciliation of them...

[James Hellyer]

I missed this line, oh! patronising one:

But it's absurd to deny they exist because you haven't read them, or don't understand them.

It's absurd to say you understand them if you claim they are in any thought through, consistent and coherent positions.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

James I take it you ignored the substantial post our Editor made earlier in the week on the

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

James I take it you ignored the substantial post our Editor made earlier in the week on the similarities between the policy positions of Cameron and Davis?

[James Hellyer]

You mean the one that contained a series of generalisations from both candidates, Iain? In Davis's case that was excusable (both men's were culled from Telegraph articles)as he had previously laid out policy for some areas in detail in his speeches. Cameron has not.

[James Hellyer]

Other than "elected police commissioners" there are no extra commitments in those articles. So try again.

Or do you really believe that things like this:

"Create the urban revival that can alone prevent the urban exodus that threatens our countryside and natural environment"

are in any way meaningful?

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Urban regeneration is a hugely complex topic and if any of the leadership contenders have said anything particularly substantial I - as an elected member in an inner-city authority myself - would be very surprised.

If you can point me in the direction of a substantial tome on inner-city regeneration by any of the candidates I'd be delighted to read it.

As far as I am aware, the only genuinely substantial work on Conservative policy in inner-cities is the Bow Group's "Go Zones" document, and the author of that, Damian Hinds, is a Cameron supporter.

[James Hellyer]

Nice attempt to miss the point, Iain. That point being that Cameron has not said really anything substantial on any issue. That no other leadership candidate has gone beyond soundbites on this issue in no way means Cameron has done so, or has done so on other issues.

[Bob]

Just picking a few:

Europe: you have to negotiate the repatriation of powers. You do this by persuading European allies (particularly the new members, who aren't wild about over-regulation and centralism, having seen where that road ends). I've heard the argument before that you have to either accept the status quo or leave the EU. From UKIP. And Labour.

Foreign affairs: Cameron beleives we should support democratisation efforts in Iraq. It says so on his website. I should have thought that was clear.

The economy: looking at flatter taxes is a policy distinction from rejecting them, and you don't just support an idea so complex and radical without studying it first. Also, it's "current party practice" as set out by the Shadow Chancellor - it's not hard to join the dots to the Cameron campaign. Further, not every position of every candidate needs to be distinct from current party policy. That we be surprising, and unhealthy, no?

Education: Greater autonomy and more rigorous standards isn't a contradiction. It's a balance. Public policy is nuanced. And, OK, the government is against more rigorous standards. It thinks the standards in exams now are fine, and aggressively shouts down anyone who says otherwise.

Law and order: Local autonomy for police is a shift in strategy from what is happening now. Whence the responsibility to have all the detail decided now?

Drugs: Changing the balance of punishment and treatment is also a shift in strategy. Again, there's no need to provide all of the details now.

Writing the 2009 manifesto now is silly. And David Cameron seems to be the only candidate you're holding to such a ridiculous standard.

Has Liam Fox (whom I like, by the way) worked out every last implementational detail of all of his policies?

I get you not rating Cameron, but you're pretending he doesn't have any policies, and you'll need a less tissue-thin objection than that.

To be fair, though, no-one else seems to have found a stronger objection, either, which is probably why Cameron is gaining support.

It's possible to back your candidate, and still respect the other ones. In fact, that's exactly the shift in tone Cameron wants.

[James Hellyer]

Europe: you have to negotiate the repatriation of powers. You do this by persuading European allies (particularly the new members, who aren't wild about over-regulation and centralism, having seen where that road ends).

Sorry but that's not what Cameron's said - or even hinted at. He's simply stated he will repatriate social and employment legislation. Whether the new members agree or not, that cannot be done without co-operation of all members.

Pledges like Cameron's are meaningless. They are promises that if acted on would unravel the whole system. People who make those promises who aren't actually arguing for withdrawal are either stupid or insincere.

What we can hope to do, on a case-by-case basis, is to work with the new members to reform the E.U. and redefine its role (which is precisely what Dr Fox has advocated). But there is not a hope of persuading France and Germany to abandon their beloved acquis communautaire - and that's what you'd have to do to repatriate social and employment policies.

I've heard the argument before that you have to either accept the status quo or leave the EU. From UKIP. And Labour.

That's interesting. It's not an argument I advanced though. It is however what Cameron's pledge to the 92 husting meant, as that was a statement of the status quo where parliament is sovereign (but politically will not exercise that sovereignty).

Foreign affairs: Cameron beleives we should support democratisation efforts in Iraq. It says so on his website. I should have thought that was clear.

Thanks for being patronising. You originally stated democratisation as if it was a general policy. In any case, who exactly (other than Caliphatists) favours de-democratising Iraq?

The economy: looking at flatter taxes is a policy distinction from rejecting them

It's also not a policy. It's looking at a policy - something that has already been done. It's not a statement of a way forwards. Faltter taxes are also not a complex or radical idea - or have you forgotten Howe's first budget?!?

The point again is that Cameron has relied on vague generalities rather than making any substantive statement.

Education: Greater autonomy and more rigorous standards isn't a contradiction. It's a balance.

It is a contradiction because Cameron wants to use centralised powers - which goes against increased autonomy. In fact this route is what led to the current problems with the education system. How is schools autonomy and parentla choice compatible with telling teachers exactly what and how to teach?

And, OK, the government is against more rigorous standards.

No it isn't. It just has another idea about how to realise them.

Law and order: Local autonomy for police is a shift in strategy from what is happening now.

It's current party policy, but that still doesn't excuse Cameron from explaining the scope of powers he would give commissioners and how exactly they would be accountable. Would they have operational authority, for example?

Drugs: Changing the balance of punishment and treatment is also a shift in strategy.

It's also one that's unexplained in any detail. Is it a "harm reduction" policy? We can guess that the aim isn't a "a drug free society", but beyond the existing policy of more treatment centres it adds little. Where does he stand on cannabis reclassification? Or is he sending mixed messages?

Writing the 2009 manifesto now is silly.

So are your straw man arguments. Nobody suggested that he had to do that.

The point is not that we have to present a manifesto now, but that incredibly broad generalisations are not acceptable as indications of the party's future direction for a politician with no real track record. Davis, Fox and Clarke can be forgiven high level comments because they have a history of detailed policy positions. Cameron does not.

get you not rating Cameron, but you're pretending he doesn't have any policies...

Wow. That's a false point. I never said he didn't have any policies, I said he had no substantive policies - that there is little to his campaign beyong image and generalities. You have done nothing to dispel that perception.

[wasp]

James Hellyer when are you going to realise that image and generalities are THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN THIS ELECTION. As Liam Fox has repeatedly said during the last election people warmed to our policies until they discovered they were Tory policies.

The next Tory leader does need to be another Thatcher in terms of approach. We need another slayer of sacred cows that will make a clear break from the rightist tone of the last 8 years.

The Thatcher/Blair consensus is the pivot around which modern politics spins and the Conservatives have to attune to that.

[James Hellyer]

James Hellyer when are you going to realise that image and generalities are THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN THIS ELECTION.

No they are not. The direction the party intends to take and what it stands for are the most important things.

As Liam Fox has repeatedly said during the last election people warmed to our policies until they discovered they were Tory policies.

Nice piece of misinterpretation. The reason support for policies (specifically immigration) dropped when they were identified as Conservative policies wasn't because people don't like the party, it was because the agenda we offered consisted solely of such issues, which made us appear out of touch with what people were most concerned about and far too strident on these fringe issues.

The answer to that is to adopt an agenda that matters to people, rather than continuing to fight elections on the narrow range of issues we perceive as ours. Changing presentation and using contradictory generalities in no way addresses this most fundamental issue of substance.

[Tom]

I'm a floating voter who finds any promise to ditch the Daily Mail approach extremely appealing. I would at least like to see a socially liberal and inclusive Conservative Party that is not hung-up on holy cows like Euro-scepticism, asylum seekers, and the family (please define). I appreciate you don't want to be socialist, but now that trust and reputation are not such advantages for the Labour Party, the Centre ground is surely open again. I would like to see policies come from the Conservative party's thoughts and research rather than the Mail's editorials.

[Sean Fear]

"James Hellyer when are you going to realise that image and generalities are THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN THIS ELECTION."

That assumes that good times last forever, and that leaders never have to show their ability in a crisis.