Ann Widdecombe backs 'streetfighter' Davis

After a string of endorsements for David Cameron, David Davis has picked up the eleventh hour backing of Ann Widdecombe.  One of Ken Clarke's earliest backers Miss Widdecombe switched her support to Liam Fox in round two.  She describes Mr Davis as a "streetfighter" with "the strength to stand up to Blair and Brown". 

Miss Widdecombe, a darling of the constituency rubber chicken circuit, was damning about David Cameron:

"David Cameron has not come up with any substantial policies and has never held any serious office.  He has spoken at the Commons despatch box only a couple of times.  When you put it all together it does not add up to leadership."

Miss Widdecombe's support for Mr Davis comes in a Mail on Sunday article (not online) which reports that carpet tycoon Lord Harris is willing to raise a £100m warchest for David Cameron.  The MoS says that Lord Harris, 61, is prepared to invest £5m of his own money in getting David Cameron into Downing Street.  Lord Harris has backed David Cameron from the very start of the contest.

Comments

[Jack Stone]

Anne Widdicombe may be popular with those inside the party but I`m afraid that she is not with those outside the party who we have to attract to win power.
I am surprised that no one as commented about the news concerning Lord Harris.
Its nice to hear of business leaders who are prepared to put there money where there mouth is.
If DC is elected we could be entering a period when its going to be very exciting to be a Conservative.

[Henry Cook]

The fact is, I don't buy the idea that you think DC would be such a disaster when the man you saw as our saviour clearly disagrees. Of course it would be reasonable if you said "DD is my preferred choice, but DC would be alright as well." But you dismiss Cameron out of hand, and with him the judgement of Liam Fox, in whom you placed so much stock.

[hayek's grandad]

I don't see how this is a surprise at all. This is the woman who said everyone who ever took any illegal drugs should be banged up, apparently causing the largest fall in our electoral ratings since 1997. I don’t see how she could possibly back Cameron (given he clearly doesn’t agree with such extreme measures) without appearing completely hypocritical.

[James Hellyer]

"The fact is, I don't buy the idea that you think DC would be such a disaster when the man you saw as our saviour clearly disagrees."

I think your overwrought language betrays an agenda. I don't agree with this choice. That doesn't mean I don't agree with other choices. It's a false dichotomy that you've created.

"But you dismiss Cameron out of hand"

If by "out of hand" you mean that I've considered his abilities at great length and found them wanting, then I would agree...

"with him the judgement of Liam Fox"

Or rather confirmed my belief that MPs should kept out of the leadership election process, because tehy are too close to the candidates and often base their judgements on the wrong criteria.

You're just trying to conflate two seperate issues.

[Ted]

Anne Widdecombe abstained on the proposal to extend the maximum period for police detention of a terrorist suspect without charge to 90 days...after indicating she might vote with the government.
David Davis uses "his" victory on this as major plank in his campaign.

[Henry Cook]

"If by "out of hand" you mean that I've considered his abilities at great length and found them wanting, then I would agree..."

Take a look at this one:

"I have no faith that David Cameron will deliver anything other than failure."

- that is what I mean by 'out of hand'. It didn't take me long to find such a quote. Have reservations by all means (I have some myself) but don't dismiss him, as I said, 'out of hand'. Your views are so strong on this issue, that you must think those who disagree (incl. LF) with you on this issue have shown seriously bad judgement (ergo they couldn't lead the party).

"Or rather confirmed my belief that MPs should kept out of the leadership election process, because tehy are too close to the candidates and often base their judgements on the wrong criteria."

Let me now remind you of your first post on this thread:

"Good for Ann Widdecombe. Her endorsement is interesting as she backs people on the grounds that she thinks that they'll be a winner with the electorate (remember that despite agreeing with IDS on so much, supported Clarke in 2001)."

Clearly MP endorsements are significant when they are in DD's favour! How do you know she is not one of the MPs who "base their judgements on the wrong criteria"? Oh of course - the answer is because she has backed DD.

[James Hellyer]

"that is what I mean by 'out of hand'."

No, that's an off the cuff summary.I have - as you wll know - explained at great length several times why I think Cameron is an unsuitable choice for leader. Am I now expect to append each comment with as essay, lest you've forgotten?

"Your views are so strong on this issue, that you must think those who disagree (incl. LF) with you on this issue have shown seriously bad judgement (ergo they couldn't lead the party)."

No, it shows that I think they are wong on this issue. Anything else is invention on your part.

"Clearly MP endorsements are significant when they are in DD's favour! How do you know she is not one of the MPs who "base their judgements on the wrong criteria"? Oh of course - the answer is because she has backed DD."

And you finally prove you are just trying to score cheap points...

Widdecombe's endorsement is interesting because of the grounds she has cited. You should note however, that I have not said the decision should be based on her judegment. So that would be another unwarranted charge of hypocrisy blown out of the water.

And the italics were switched off.

[Ted]

James

I've respected your views that you feel you don't know enough about his policies to support DC - disagree but thats what makes policies interesting.

But must disagree on MPs votes - we live in a parliamentary democracy in which the prime minister is chosen because he has the support of a sufficient number of MPs. It is important therefore that any leader has this - otherwise the party breaks up into factions voting their agendas. DD's high water mark was about a third of the party - and in first round this gave him a majority - arguably this gives him sufficient support to be leader. MPs are not delegates, and unless we see that any potential leaders will attract sufficient support in the House the choice the mass membership makes could destroy the party - MPs are responsible to their electorates not the party.

Also I do believe that MPs are more aware of the abilities of potential leaders than the local associations. They are putting their jobs on the line - we are not - and also have seen at first hand the operations of the various factional leaders. So knowing who supports a candidate informs my view of that candidate.

I support the present process in broad principle - except that I'd prefer the three top contenders to go before the mass membership - Portillo, Fox were probably both kept off the list by tactical voting from the leading candidate's supporters.

[Alexa Michael]

I'm not surprised that Ann Widdecombe is backing David Davis, given Cameron's dodgy views on illegal drugs. DD's policy is to reclassify cannabis as a Class B drug, to build more prisons, be tough on crime, etc. Ann is very much somebody who sticks to her guns and says exactly what she thinks, rather than trying to be nice to everybody, which ultimately gets you nowhere. Well done Ann!

[malcolm thomas]

Cameron pulled off a great feat by getting Alistair Campbell to provide full media backing for his leadership bid right through the Parliamentary rounds.

To achieve this simple 'con' on the supposedly greatest spinner of them all, Cameron had to make himself believable as another unprincipled politician completely interested in playing a media image game like Blair - and having no fixed policies like Portillo.

Campbell saw in Cameron just the man he was looking for, backed him to the hilt, rubbished DD and blanked Liam Fox who was clearly a dangerous threat to Campbell's pro-EU fixation.

Now Campbell's had a nasty shock. Instead of all the ex-Ken Clark MP's rallying round Cameron, and the eurosceptics deprived of Liam Fox landing in the Davis camp, as everyone expected, in fact the exact opposite has happened.

Ken Clarke's MP's have persuaded Davis to stay in the EPP for two more years and they now back DD; while Cameron has turned out to be the natural home for all the key eurosceptics. This is not the deal that Alistair Campbell paid for, and he is bl**dy livid.

He's now desperate thrashing around for any dirt he can find to put Cameron back in the wrapper, but Cameron fleet has now put to sea, with many months of plain sailing lying ahead.

Meanwhile Campbell's wellies are filling with water. He's squelching around wondering how Cameron eluded him.

Do we have a Nelson of the airwaves appearing in our midst? Have we just witnessed the greatest media con trick of all time? with the once greatest spinner of them all the fall guy. Campbell's having to chew on his own medicine and apparently he doesn't like the taste.

[John Hustings]

"Ken Clarke's MP's have persuaded Davis to stay in the EPP for two more years and they now back DD"

Who else other than Quentin Davies?

[malcolm thomas]

Don't know. I received this information in an email reply from Roger Helmer MEP.

I had written asking him why he had not commented on DD's offer of the twin referenda on repatriating powers, while he was publicly complementing DC on his 'pull out of the EPP policy' and backing DC.

Sorry am not prepared to provide exact text as it was private correspondence and I don't have permission to publish the email.

[Peter]

So Jack you think Ann views on hanging doesn't have the support of the nation. Sorry but its your views that may well be in the minority on most law and order points of view. Also lets be honest again Labour could have had Donald Duck as leader in either 1997 or 2001 and still had won?