The press versus David Davis

Some of David Davis' supporters are understandably angry at the way that their candidate's conference speech was reported.  They'll readily concede that Mr Davis is not a good platform speaker and that last Wednesday's speech was disappointing.  But disappointing; not disastrous.  'Disastrous', of course, is how the media played it.  Within minutes pundits were describing the speech as awful and drawing very unfavourable contrasts with the previous day's contributions from rivals Cameron and Clarke.  Cameron's speech probably gave a 1000 volts boost to his campaign but the frenzied media probably doubled that voltage.

The Davis campaign thinks that it has been unfairly treated and I couldn't argue with that assessment.  David Davis' speech was "uninspirational" - as I wrote at the time - and the Cameron speech did "delight" the conference but Mr Cameron's speech also had its weaknesses of detail (none of which have been properly scrutinised six days later but which may yet cause him problems at the hustings before MPs).

But complaints of unfair treatment - however well-founded - almost miss the point.  The press gave Mr Davis some raw treatment because a lot of journalists wanted to kick him.  That fact is arguably more important than the slanted coverage it motivated.

Some journalists have been at the sharp end of the DD campaign's bully boy tactics in the same way that MPs have.  Many journalists have also observed the way that the DD camp has briefed against other contenders and they choked on Mr Davis' suggestion that conservatives should never speak ill of a fellow conservative.  In contrast to the negative attitude to Mr Davis, a lot of journalists like David Cameron.  Many of them share Mr Cameron's Notting Hill/ metropolitan outlook.  He has made himself accessible whilst Mr Davis spends a disproportionate amount of time in Yorkshire.

The media are likely, of course, to become cooler towards Mr Cameron and Mr Davis' new media quartet (identified within this post) are more likely to charm the press pack (which Andrew Mitchell, DD's campaign chairman, mismanaged).  In the meantime, however, one of Mr Cameron's top assets is his support base in the media and one of Mr Davis' greatest problems is his lack of media allies.  Tim Hames and Michael Brown are prominent DD supporters but they are the exceptions.  Leading the charge against Mr Davis are Peter Oborne and Bruce Anderson.  Forunately for Mr Davis, few are as unforgiving as Mr Anderson in his Independent column of today (subscription required):

"How did so many Tory MPs manage to persuade themselves that [David Davis] was a serious figure?  It is possible to imagine any of the other four leadership candidates in Number 10.  But David Davis?  Imagination has its limits... "

And Mr Anderson is a "Conservative columnist'.

Comments

[Sean Fear]

Being abused by Brute Anderson is surely a recommendation for the job.

[Adrian Sherman]

Let's look at Cameron's press cheerleaders, shall we?

Brute Anderson whose judgement is about 100% wrong, chinless Gove, slimey Vaizey, airhead Alice Thompson, puffball Tory Boy D'Ancona, scurf-ridden buffon Boris Ponce-son.

What a motley and unattractive crew. If a candidate is to be judged by the company he keeps, then we should kick this vacuous nobody into the long-grass.

[Derek]

The power of the press is enormous, and no candidate can afford to put their backs up. Some politicians go out of their way to cultivate the press, such as Tony Blair. I very much regret that this is necessary, but we've all seen how the press can make or break a leader.

[Editor]

Adrian - in future, can we make this blog a place for substantial debate and avoid the personal abuse...? PLEASE!

[Adrian Sherman]

OK editor, fair enough. Just getting into the knock-about spirit, too much!

[Editor]

Thanks!

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Dealing with the media is an interesting one. At the end of they day they can write what they want. I was once told 70% of the stories in a paper are there for a reason - advancing one agenda or another.

Can politicians complain about the press they get - Yes - but it will probably make little difference

In todays world there is a huge dilemma for politicians. People say they want plain speaking - yet if they do, they can be pulled up for any little inconsistency.

I remember in the election - a policy to introduce free travel across the whole of Nottinghamshire for pensioners appeared in a Labour document as a spending commitment by me. Now actually it was a costed policy proposal - but it highlights how the words of every politician is looked at more than ever.

Davis had the press pack savage him very unfairly (in my opinion) after his speech, but I believe the mark of the man will be in his swift recovery. To me that will show true leadership. The other contenders will be in no doubt that if they are seen to be challenging "for the crown" it will be when, not if they will be faced with the same treatment.

[Michael Smith]

For me the major point is how little positive enthusiasm there was for Davis either amongst the media or the great majority of his parliamentary supporters. It is as if the moment someone said 'it's okay, you don't have to like Davis any more, you have an excuse to like someone else' that is what pretty much everyone did.

It was all very well being Davis when everyone thought he was going to win, because that way he could at least get the careerists on his side - but now I really wonder whether he has a chance, 'relaunch' or not. He doesn't seem to have made many real friends or allies, does he?

(Maybe I should add at this point that I do support Davis, or rather that I want anyone who isn't Cameron or Clarke ... just wish the Right had a stronger candidate)

[Jonathan Sheppard]

We seem to forget that his nearest challenger is miles behind on the number of declared MPs.

[Michael Smith]

I haven't forgotten that, Jonathan - I just don't trust those pledges. But who knows, maybe you are right? (Well, obviously you are right in the sense that Davis still has far more pledges than anyone else - just perhaps not right in the sense that all of them will keep their promises and do what they said they'd do.)

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I am sure the more cynical bloggers will have something to say about politicians and keeping promises! :)

[buxtehude]

This is the worst news yet about the DD campaign. If they'd realised their weaknesses and showed a willingness to adapt, then they would stand a chance. But to whinge? How pathetic. Don't keep blowing it, DD - get yourself a decent campaign instead of blaming the press.

[Stephen Alley]

Talking about negativity, I have to admit that I was very disappointed by the negativity of David Davis' speech.

He began his speech with a reference to the 7/7 bombings, this may have been an attempt at portraying himself in the image of a leader, or even a "Bush". However, I find that combating terrorism is often more reactive, than proactive, and is in some ways best left to the police and the secret services.

Another aspect of negativity was the talk of deportation and even the back-handed praise for the French was hardly admirable. Deportation is hardly inspiring, postivie stuff.

I don't think the press are unfair in judging that Davis has been negative. He should know that the Tories are not going to win elections on the basis of their stances on terrorism and immigration, surely the focus has to be on public services.

[Selsdon Man]

Stephen, Davis was appealing to the Cornerstone Group(or Tombstone as the press have dubbed it). I do not think that Davis was comfortable with his content and that may explain the awful delivery.

[James Hellyer]

Davis was appealing to the Cornerstone Group(or Tombstone as the press have dubbed it).

If Davis wanted to appeal to Cornerstone, he wouldn't have rubbished them and their views - as part of a not very veiled pop at Dr Fox - before the conference.

[Selsdon Man]

I missed that James - typical of Davis arrogance!

[James Hellyer]

David Davis was trying to give a traditional "portfolio" speech. He didn't want to stray too far from his brief for some reason.

The problem is that his comments regarding his brief were singualarly uninspiring. Compare for example, Davis's call for more prisons with Dr Fox's comments on how the penal system fails the mentally ill, who have also been failed by the mental health system, thus condemning them to life in an inappropriate institution. Prison works. But it just locks up the problem for a while. Fox's approach looks at solving the problem, and shows a compassion that could appeal to non-Conservatives. Davis's comments appeal to the paeleo-right only.

Davis's speech was dismal in ways far worse than his inarticulate delivery.

[Jules]

"Typical of Davis arrogance" - unlike Fox who decided to list his background and then said he didn't want people to use his background as a reason to choose him as leader.

[Guido Fawkes]

The Davis crowd complaining about the press, is as Enoch once nearly said, like a sailor complaining about the sea.

Mike Smith's comment that it is as if the press were given permission to dislike Basher has a ring of truth about it.

[James Hellyer]

"I missed that James - typical of Davis arrogance!"

Have a link!

[Sean Fear]

Actually, I think our stance on terrorism will be a crucial issue over the next few years. There is a very good deal to attack Labour about on that subject. Going negative is fine if you have something to be negative about.

[Mark Fulford]

There's only one MP who can lay claim to the religious-right Cornerstone vote.

[Free Democrat]

This goes beyond the next few weeks. If Davis has annoyed the the general mass of the right of centre press already this is hardly going to improve if he becomes leader. Complaining that the press got it wrong won't help either. Making the press like you is part of the job. If Davis can't do that then he shouldn't be leader.

[James Hellyer]

There's only one MP who can lay claim to the religious-right Cornerstone vote.

Which would be why Iain Lidell-Grainger is backing David Davis. Obviously.

[Mark Fulford]

Yes, it must come as quite a disappointment to Fox that 50% of the Cornerstone declarations have gone elsewhere.

There's a difference between laying claim and actually getting.