"In Brighton, they praised Tony Blair. Even Gordon Brown managed a bit of it, albeit only in the hope that if he slapped the back of the Prime Minister hard enough, it might shove him out of the door. But quite a lot of those at the Labour conference, especially the Chancellor, couldn't wait to bury the man who has led them to three successive election victories."
So writes Andrew Rawnsley in today's Observer. We all know that the Labour Party has never really warmed to Tony Blair. His tough rhetoric on crime and his opposition to taxing the rich were forgiven because he was a vote winner. The consequences of his alliance with 'that neocon in the White House' have been too much for Labour's rank-and-file to ever forgive.
But as Labour seeks to bury Blairism, Mr Rawnsley sees signs that Tories are embracing aspects of it.
Tony Blair had New Labour; David Davis has Modern Conservatives, for example. Rawnsley: "David Davis declares that his party should not 'ape new Labour' and then does exactly that. Where Blair was a kleptomaniac of Tory language, Davis is engaged in grand larceny of the Blairite verbal wardrobe. At his leadership campaign launch, he talked of 'opportunity for the many, not just the privileged few'. Several other phrases were also copy-and-pastes from the collected speeches of Tony Blair."
David Cameron - who has already been likened (uncharitably) to Tony Blair by Nick Cohen - is also imitating the man Tories have struggled to comprehend for more than a decade: "David Cameron likewise downloads from the master when he tells the Tories: 'We can only change our country if we dare to change our party'. His emphasis on winning back the trust of the public by demonstrating the capacity to change is Blair circa 1994, as is the vagueness about what precisely that change will amount to."
More important than these imitations of style and language, however, are acceptances of Labour policies. Rawnsley notes how New Labour's architects understood that their party "would only be regarded as the appropriate successor to Thatcherism once it had accepted those elements of her settlement that were popular". Inspired by Peter Riddell, this blog has previously examined this issue of Labour's '1997 Settlement'. The Tories are already on the road to that acceptance. The minimum wage, Bank of England independence and the increased scale of health and education spending have already all been accepted. Rawnsley notes how today's leadership contenders are now prepared to go further with David Cameron, for example, speaking "admiringly of the creation of foundation hospitals and city academies".
David Cameron is closer to being Blair's successor than David Davis. His public service reform agenda lacks the radicalism of David Davis' emphasis on sweeping change. Mr Cameron appears to have accepted that the public won't support radical reforms. Mr Davis thinks that the nation's schools and hospitals need nothing less. They both could be right.
It is for this reason alone that I have some aversion to Cameron: I don't want the party turned into New Labour - I want it to be a viable alternative to New Labour.
I am very interested in what David Davis has to say and I hope he manages to bring across some of his ideas and policies at conference. I know that he doesn't have the best image among the contenders, but I can understand why he is favourite.
Posted by: Elena | 02 October 2005 at 15:25
No Blairism for me!
I want a leader committed to rolling back the state - at national, local and European levels. The free market is the true localism. Individualism is the only answer to the nanny state.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 02 October 2005 at 15:28
The Times today also had a piece about Cameron being Blair's natural successor. Why is this seen as a good thing? I don't want the Conservatives adopting the stomach-turning Blairite approach thank you very much and neither should anybody else who is sick of being governed by a plastic, unprincipled grin merchant who is more slick than and just as oily as a punctured petroleum tanker.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 02 October 2005 at 15:37
All of this marks out why David Cameron should not be Conservative leader. To use his own words, “Like Coca-Cola, get the real thing.”
Why would the elctorate want a New Labour knock off when the real deal is still on offer?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 15:42
James (and, for once, Cornerstone) have it exactly right: aping New Labour would not work electorally, and, more importantly, would be just as much a betrayal of our roots as New Labour is of socialism.
Rawnsley is deeply unfair to David Davis. Reading his speeches, and putting them into the context of his past comments, it is clear that he is simply talking about updating policies so that they are suitable for this century. He promotes 'timeless Tory values'. Cameron wants to see a fundamental change, which is something quite different.
Posted by: Ronald Collinson | 02 October 2005 at 16:26
What is Blairism? To me it seems just a Clintonesque view of the world where the only thing that matters is remaining in office.It is government by focus group and triangulation from the left and right.
Blair often talks a marvellous game but it is all really irrelevant rather as the delivery never matches the rhetoric ...to put it mildly.
I predict that Blairism will match the legacy of Bill Clinton which lasted all of five minutes.
I hope that none of the candidates seek to ape Blair because that would mean they are fundamentally dishonest and the first task of whoever wins is to try and restore some honesty to British politics.
Posted by: malcolm | 02 October 2005 at 18:53
To me it seems just a Clintonesque view of the world where the only thing that matters is remaining in office
That also sounds like Majorism!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 18:58
Cameron is not copying Blair - it is given the electorate a leader that they want.
David Davis is never going to be prime minister. Ken Clarke shows little desire for Tory policies.
What Cameron provides is an electable moderate who's policies have their origins in Conservative thought. He is not a Blair-clone, Blair introduced moderate ideas that came from Left-wing thought.
One Question everyone who dismisses Cameron as a Blair-clone needs to ask themselves:
Would you rather a moderate Prime Minister from a Conservative background or a Labour background.
Posted by: AnotherNick | 02 October 2005 at 19:06
Can anybody explain to me how David Davis is going to win us an election? Personally, I can't see him winning a single vote off Gordon Brown.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 02 October 2005 at 19:59
I want a PRINCIPLED Conservative Prime Minister.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 02 October 2005 at 19:59
Selsdon Man: You want principles.... how about the following -
"what matters most is that children are brought up in a stable, loving home"
"shared responsibility; that we’re all in this together; that there’s a ‘we’ in our politics as well as a ‘me.’"
"fairly sharing the fruits of economic growth between lower taxes and strengthened public services"
"More choice, competition and local autonomy must be matched by strong leadership to raise standards."
"Britain has always done best when she engages ethically and enthusiastically with the wider world."
Some chap called Cameron was going on about them:-)
Posted by: AnotherNick | 02 October 2005 at 20:17
Of course David Davis won`t win a single vote from Brown or become Prime Minister because he just doesn`t speak the language of compassion and change that the electorate need to hear from the party.
Davis is incapable of doing that because I think he still thinks the solutions of the seventies and eighties are the answer to our problems today.
If the party choose Davis as leader we will once again be sitting discussing the leadership once again in four years time or personally I suspect even sooner.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 02 October 2005 at 20:37
Another Nick, most of these quotes are soundbites not principles. Even my friends in the Cameron camp would agree!
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 02 October 2005 at 20:46
MF - Can anybody explain to me how David Davis is going to win us an election?
I'll have a shot even though I'm not a particular cheerleader for DD! I watched him on that Marr Sunday programme this morning and thought he did well to point out that he held a difficult seat in the North against plenty of campaigning by the opposition parties, I wonder if the others could have done that? I liked the Beer quip too.
"He seems an alright bloke" is what people tell me when I ask what they make of him.
I would also say that taking back your own property, re: "Where Blair was a kleptomaniac of Tory language, Davis is engaged in grand larceny of the Blairite verbal wardrobe", is called retrieval where I come from not grand larceny, and at least he has the bottle to do it.
Posted by: a-tracy | 02 October 2005 at 20:47
A brilliantly incisive post Jack.I think you are able to eloquently sum up what all of us on this blog are thinking.Personally I am wondering if we should have a leadership election at all.We all look forward to Brown becoming Prime Minister and if we are really lucky we will have Prescott as chancellor.
Posted by: malcolm | 02 October 2005 at 20:49
"The Tories are already on the road to that acceptance. The minimum wage, Bank of England independence and the increased scale of health and education spending have already all been accepted."
Not by true Conservatives! The policies of so-called independent bank of England (it is still nationalised) have given us unprecedented private indebtedeness.
Posted by: | 02 October 2005 at 20:52
"David Cameron is closer to being Blair's successor than David Davis. His public service reform agenda lacks the radicalism of David Davis' emphasis on sweeping change. Mr Cameron appears to have accepted that the public won't support radical reforms."
They will when they are fed up paying for failure.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 02 October 2005 at 20:54
"what matters most is that children are brought up in a stable, loving home"
Has any politician said that wat matters most is that children are brought upin an unstable, uncaring home?
"shared responsibility; that we’re all in this together; that there’s a ‘we’ in our politics as well as a ‘me.’"
What Conservative has argued for atomistic individualism?
"fairly sharing the fruits of economic growth between lower taxes and strengthened public services"
What does this mean?
"More choice, competition and local autonomy must be matched by strong leadership to raise standards."
This could have been said by anyone in the Conservative party.
"Britain has always done best when she engages ethically and enthusiastically with the wider world."
What does this mean?
Most of these are just soundbites that either say something so nebulous as to be meaningless, or so obvious nobody would deny it!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 20:56
They will when they are fed up paying for failure.
Which may happen soon. Not long ago the government admitted that the public were in danger of losing trust in the NHS. People had seen increased spending unde this government, but hadn't noticed a matching improvement. I was noted that if they didn't see it soon, they would lose trust in the system.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 21:04
"Britain engaging ethically with the world" isn't a principle - crikey what is?
I certainly prefer to here David Cameron set out his principles than I do listen to David Davis pretend to be a compassionate conservative.... this is the same guy who ignored party policy and publically said he supported the death penalty in the middle of the Soham murder trial. Now if that is what you view as principled then I and a lot of others are in the wrong party. It was cynical opportinisum then and I do not trust David Davis to run this country - neither will the electorate.
Does Ken offer principles? No Ken offers Ken.
Liam Fox does offer principles, no argument there, but will they be the principles that can see him be Prime Minister - I genuinely don't think so, but am not certain.
So please tell me what more you want from principles than David Cameron has given because all I can hear is the same old soundbite of "that's not a principle that's a soundbite"
Posted by: AnotherNick | 02 October 2005 at 21:06
"Britain engaging ethically with the world" isn't a principle - crikey what is? You need to define "ethically". Otherwise it is meaningless.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 02 October 2005 at 21:10
"this is the same guy who ignored party policy and publically said he supported the death penalty in the middle of the Soham murder trial. Now if that is what you view as principled then I and a lot of others are in the wrong party."
I do not support the death penalty but if you exclude those that do, you will be excluding a large proportion of the membership and the electorate.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 02 October 2005 at 21:13
"Britain engaging ethically with the world" isn't a principle - crikey what is?
A meaningful and clear statement. That isn't one, because both the type of engagement and the nature of ethics are undefined. It's little more than a hollow soundbite.
Now if that is what you view as principled then I and a lot of others are in the wrong party.
Has anyone cited that as an example of a principled stand?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 21:15
There is a difference in supporting the death penalty (which I don't) and publically stating it in the middle of a high profile highly emotive court case when there simply was no reason to.
Posted by: AnotherNick | 02 October 2005 at 21:29
Agreed. But I don't see anyone arguing that this is an example of Davis being principled.
Where's Wat when we need him?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 October 2005 at 21:33