Cameron and Davis offer different approaches against Blair

David Davis has put a new edge on his rhetotic today - implying that David Cameron will "slavishly follow" a Blair-style "image-led strategy".  In Mr Davis' speech to this morning's Leicester hustings, he said:

“I give you this pledge. I will not ride to Tony Blair’s rescue. I will do all I can to hasten his end. So the choice you make in the coming days is crucial to the fate of this party and the fate of the country. Either we can slavishly follow Tony Blair and go for an image-led strategy, cautious on policy, or you can go for battle hardened experience – sure in the knowledge that our principles are enduring principles, fit to take this party and this country to a better future.”

That is certainly the strategy he followed last week in defeating Mr Blair's terror reforms.  Radio 4's World At One suggested that Mr Davis had "won" the Leicester meeting.  The question of how to react to an increasingly weak Tony Blair is one of the biggest that will face the incoming leader.  Should the Conservatives help him secure his (albeit half-hearted) education and other reforms as better than the status quo?  Should we side with the Labour left and defeat those reforms - so speeding Mr Blair's end and the arrival of a Tory government (or a Brown leadership)?  Today's Telegraph is inclined to support Mr Cameron's style of opposition:

"David Davis is a naturally combative man, who sees his main role as being to biff Labour. There is no dishonour here: the chief function of an opposition, as Disraeli observed, is to oppose; and heaven knows there is plenty to oppose in this ministry. Then again, Disraeli lost five out of six general elections. Voters do not warm to a party that seems to be playing politics instead of looking to the national interest. David Cameron plainly takes the view that voting with the far Left - whether over tuition fees, foundation hospitals or Iraq - makes his party look meretricious. To paid-up members of the forces of conservatism, it is frustrating that the main conflict should be between Mr Blair's milk-and-water reforms and the immobilism of his own party. But offering qualified support to Mr Blair's liberalising proposals, flawed and tentative as they might be, is the best way to convince the country of the Tories' seriousness and so, paradoxically, to hasten his departure."

Comments

[Gareth]

I agree with Michael's analysis but would go a step further. Like it or loathe it (and I'm in the loathe camp) Blair has altered the whole character of a politician's discourse with the electorate.

His 'I feel your pain' emoting owes much to changes in our society anyway, as anyone who watches day-time audience participation shows or witnesses the rather maudlin attitude of the public towards public grief displays. Cameron understands these changes and, to put it in the most crass terms, he can talk this language.

This, for me, is the real sense in which he is the 'heir to Blair'. I entirely see why some people hate this, but the reality is that Blair has changed the public's perception of how politicians ought to relate to them. We need to accept that, adopt it ourselves and move on.

Davis is painfully of the old-school in respect of these changes in mood. It perplexes and irritates him that the public has changed as it has. His rejection of this approach is honourable but bound to fail.

[Sean Fear]

I tend to agree with Ken Livingstone (not something you'll often hear me say) that "Labour would have won with a pig in charge in 1997".

[Peter]

The problem is Garth is that you don't take into account the 40%+ of the electorate that don't vote even at General elections. If you saying that we should right those people off then its a bad day for democracy in this country?
No policies no victory.

[Peter]

Sean I thought it was Donald Duck who people elected in 1997?
The best thing that can happen to the Conservatives is if they bring back Spitting Image.

Sean, Blair has spent the past 8 years telling porkies!

[Gareth]

Time to concentrate hard again Peter.

The argument is not that we should fight a general election without detailed policies, clearly, that would be madness, but rather whether we need those detailed polcies now, 4 years out.

[Harry Randall]

With BOTH DD's and DC's Campaigns each claiming they won the Leicester Hustings, I wonder who actually DID win!.
Harry

[Harry Randall]

The media gives coverage to the fact that DD was late for the Leicester Hustings. Am I alone with the knowledge that DC was late for R4 Question time last Friday and was forced to conduct his contribution to the programme via a telephone link in a car park?

Harry

Isn't David Davis four years late?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Am I alone with the knowledge that DC was late for R4 Question time last Friday and was forced to conduct his contribution to the programme via a telephone link in a car park?"

That's right, he was a no-show for Any Questions? Strangely enough, the Cameron campaign newsletter (f.k.a. The Times) failed to mention this.

[Rick]

via a telephone link in a car park?

The Dimbleby stressed it was "an executive car park" so at least he did not have to mix with the great unwashed. From the sound of it he appeared to have his feet up and talking through a squawk-box

[Jack Stone]

The way David Davis campaign as gone so far I would think that rather than turn up late he would have been better off not turning up for the campaign at all!

[EU Serf]

On the subject of Support versus Oppose, my thoughts are as follows.

We should sometimes support government actions that we know to be unpopular with the party. Help the Labour Backbenchers get a taste for rebellion, at low cost to their party.

At the same time, if you can't indulge in a bit of Punch and Judy, then I'm sorry you don't care enough.

Whilst tactically Cameron is correct, (In limited doses) he quite obviously lacks the desire for the fight.

[Rick]

"I would think that rather than turn up late he would have been better off not turning up for the campaign at all!"

Elections are obviously a strange concept for you Jack Stone.......maybe you ought to read up on them before Blair springs another one on you and you fail again !

[Peter]

Gareth can you get a life yourself. As I said before what is Cameron going to be doing for the next two years in the commons, grinning seems to be his only option. Know if he is as much a supporter of a flat tax as Osborne why take two or more years to find this out as well before that time we need to be getting the population on board to the idea not just in the last six months up to the next general election. Also the fact is with only a majority of 71(ie provos not voting) we need to show the weakness of the government over the next four years(which Blair also did) and how we would be different if we were in power just like Thatcher did 75-79 and even Heath did 65-70?