Hustings Report (9): London

Sam Coates, author of the Votes at 18 blogspot, submits the ninth Hustings Report (and, I think, the most comprehensive) - for last night's gathering in Westminster (Methodist) Central Hall.  Sam will be a member of the panel of undecided Tory voters on this afternoon's Sky News Leadership Debate (3pm, repeated 9pm).  If he looks at bit tired on that programme it will be because he submitted his report at 3.17am this morning.  I call that dedication!

The final two hustings - in Exeter and Newport - will be reported on next week.

Firstly, an apology to the two leadership campaigns… us ConHome hustings reporters must be very annoying to them!  I won’t lose sleep though - the scripts are still unchanged.

The London hustings was always going to be the most influential one, and I did feel both candidates were slightly nervous. There were a lot of supporters with stickers and flyers – the Davis campaign had a fair showing but couldn’t match that of the youthful Cameron campaign. By the main stairwell it was at least equalled by volunteer leafletters for this very website, “run by the members for the members”. The setting was the Great Hall in Methodist Central Hall; it was roughly 90% full out of a maximum capacity of 2,160. A magnificent but echoey building, the subsequent sound problems showed some of the Tory brigade to be quite rowdy with their “can’t hear you” cries. Oddly, the cries came back briefly around the time that the Chairman of the proceedings (London regional Chairman, Matthew Carrington) was asking for money to cover costs! I wasn’t the only one to note the relatively high proportion of young people in the audience.

David Davis started by saying the things that unite the two contenders run deeper than those that divide them. This time he was the first to get in his support for a cabinet role for William Hague, to great applause, with Cameron having to mention it later to a more uncertain clapping. Davis went on to list issues like political correctness, but the thrust of his initial speech was about not ditching principles for what he called “nip and tuck” politics.

“Blair is getting weaker by the day, this is not the time to prop him up... I won’t support half-baked public service reforms… I believe in the same things now as I did five months, even five years ago”.

He went on to stress his desire to abolish tuition fees, and then go on to his first real crowd pleasing subject… “In 1975 we signed up for a Common Market, not a United States of Europe” <cue applause> promising a double referendum, to try to balance out the early tangible policy of Cameron’s to leave the European Peoples Party. Nicely timed with the recent launch of the Women2Win group…“Women were the backbone of victory in the past”. And finally, “I led the first defeat of the government in eight years”.

He finished by framing the future as a choice between Blair and experience, although you may want to interpret the term Blair loosely!

In his summary after the questions, Davis hammered the point about how this was a civilised affair but politics isn’t, or at least Labour’s onslaught won’t be. Need someone tough and resilient to counter-attack and make good impression in the first one hundred days. Also stressed the need for all MPs to get behind the next leader. He spoke away from lectern for this part, and looked physically relaxed – folding his arms when watching Cameron’s summary.

DD Keywords: Resilient, Blair, honour, Blair, principles, Blair, “we”.

David Cameron spoke slowly, again getting cheers for “having a go at Paxman” but unbelievably trying the infamous Civil Partnership joke again! Red-tied Cameron also stressed unity early on: “we must unite as never before to fight the common enemy”. Also like Davis he emphasised the words “us” and “we” a great deal, in an effort to build rapport with the audience.

He then put clear water between his left-handed self (sorry, I’d only just noticed it at the time!) and Davis as he went on to focus on Gordon Brown, that “great regulator” and “roadblock to reform”.

Outlining three main points he said:

• The party should reflect the country – barely more women MPs than in 1972
• Appealing across the spectrum –  with climate change for example
• And making the core themes of family, low tax, rule of law have meaning today

Gesturing towards Mr. Davis he said we could be a party of the past and lose, and that he believed leadership was about conviction. We mustn’t be seen as “in it for ourselves”, we should be consistent in our voting rather than sharing opposition with the Old Labourites. Coming to an end he cracked a joke about Frank Dobson & Co belonging to the Natural History Museum, but the dinosaurs walking out in protest as a result.

He ended with “lets go for it!” (I actually think he can pull that kind of thing off fairly well).

In his end-of-debate summary he simply gave the triad of “Change. Unity. Victory” and expanded on each one a little bit in terms of why he was the one to bring it about. Had a statesmanlike pose.

DC Keywords: Change, Brown, optimism, Brown, mortgages, modern compassionate conservatism, consistency.

QUESTIONS... AND ANSWERS

1) Why has Labour won three elections? What can we learn from this?

D – Blair a formidable political general. We let them win in 1997.
C – Understand changes and focus on the future.

Win for Cameron due to oratory - Davis dictated a ‘speechy speech’ with lists etc and it didn’t come across well.

2) Is it responsible to cut taxes if it means having to borrow?

C – Broadened question to put tax within context of the economy, whilst stressing importance of the economy.
D – “Money belongs to the individual first, the state second” <clapping>

This got quite technical but it was refreshing to see some healthy debate about.  Davis didn’t shy from detail and was more convincing.

3) Should we support Labour when they are moving in the right direction?

D – Questioned if Blair had actually ever been going in the right direction
C – Said we’d be seen as “opportunistic and backward-looking” if we didn’t.

Ended up just being a small semantical difference between them.

4) Do you agree with me that downgrading of Cannabis and Ecstasy sends the wrong message? (asked by a female doctor)

C - Young people already don’t take these laws seriously. Huge increase in addicts since 1970. Treatment focussed approach.
D - Cause great deal of mental illness and lead on to hard drugs. Would never declassify

I thought Davis’ answer was much better but the audience received Camerons’ equally well.

5) What can you offer students with your policy on tuition fees?

D - Young people are idealistic. University Conservative Future branches often bigger than the other two political wings put together. View coloured by personal experience. No fees.
C – Joked that if the contest went on much longer he’d be too old for leader. Wanted strong universities to compete with America’s, that built on a science base.

Despite completely rephrasing the question at first, Cameron performed well on this one.

6) Compulsory pensions savings for all?

C - Didn’t have a policy. Talked of a policy supermarket sweep where policies are carelessly piled into a trolley and later found to be out of date.
D – Talked about not being rewarded for saving. Made positive comment about elderly people which went down well.

Pensions is a big issue and neither were satisfactory in their answers (Where’s David Willetts when you need him?)

7) How should we deal with the challenge from the LibDems?

D – Primary decapitation target but still got head. Generally made fun of LD’s and expressed hatred for them. Talked about Ludlow where every house got fifteen LD leaflets.  Conservatives have to match that.
C – Related odd story about being amazed at a house with two cars in the driveway and them both voting LD. “Hard work fighting the yellow peril” Get out own party right.

I felt they both went off the rails a little with this question!

8) What, if any, of Blairs achievements did you support?

C – Changing the Labour party. Good legacy before 1997, bad after.
D – Done serious harm to the country and the constitution of Great Britain.

Labour bashing from Basher! Cameron gave a better answer, but there was nothing of note from this question really.

9) Should we change our undemocratic voting system? (for Gen.Elections)

D - First Past The Post gives a decisive outcome rather than coalitions being negotiated in back rooms.
C – Agreed. Proposed a UK-wide boundary review to make all constituencies the same size  <loud applause>

Both stood by the status quo, but Cameron got a lot of credit for talking about boundaries – no doubt there were many scorned electioneers present.

10) How does our essential national interest justify our (disastrous) involvement in the war in Iraq?

C – Interestingly gave the stability of the Middle East as a reason. Said that our national interest can no longer be defined as what goes on near our shores.
D – Country should behave with honour and leave when Iraq is reasonably stable and democratic.

I personally liked both answers, Davis seemed more confident talking about military matters.

11) How would you reform local government finance?

D – Should be treated properly with regards to usage of tax, and fairly with regards to pensioners.
C – Problem is with level rather than nature of the Council Tax. If raised locally should be spent locally so the public can have faith in the process.

Again both took the same controversial view, this time with Cameron putting a bit more thought into the issue.

12) Most embarrassing moment in politics?

C – Was showing a group around Parliament, opened door to let them see the House of Lords… and it was a broom cupboard!
D – When younger with some friends, saw Lord Hailsham in Parliament beckoning to the then Neil Martin MP. He raised his hand and shouted “Neil”… and they all did! (Boom boom! Not as good on paper)

Nothing juicy sadly, Davis got an unexpected joke in though which went down well at the end of the proceedings!

Comments

[Selsdon Man]

"the subsequent sound problems showed some of the Tory brigade to be quite rowdy with their “can’t hear you” cries. Oddly, the cries came back briefly around the time that the Chairman of the proceedings (London regional Chairman, Matthew Carrington) was asking for money to cover costs!"

The upstairs speakers were not switched on until the end of David Cameron's speech. We could not hear any of the Davis speech. Check your facts before making a prat of yourself.

[Ian Sider]

Thanks, Sam, for the great report. I was there last night, and you've portrayed the proceeding fairly.

You're quite right about the Lib Dem question. Neither candidate seemed to have much idea what to do about them -- except to say how much they hate them.

They'd have done better to answer how it was the Lib Dems picked up Labour's lost votes and we didn't.

I wish they'd also been more generous to New Labour. Listening to the candidates you'd think that Blair and Brown add up to more than a few abortive attempts to reform the public services and lashings of extra bureaucracy.

Now, that's not the reason why over 60% of voters support the parties of the centre-left. Until we understand what they are voting for -- and offer a better alternative -- then we'll remained mired in irrelevance.

[interested observer]

I went to the Pub next to the Hall afterwards and was surprised by the number of times I heard comments along the lines of - Cameron's a pretty professional speaker (but not in the same league as the party's best (Hague, Heseltine, Thatcher, Clarke etc as he doesn't do spontenaity or passion very well) - we all know he's going to win but (and this was the interesting refrain) I've reservations about his policies and conservative convictions and would prefer Davis's.

Another person observed we have a resurged Conservative Student branch but that Cameron himself wasn't passionate enough to want to get involved when he was at Oxford despite the late 80's being prime time.

[Selsdon Man]

A large number of the audience could not hear the speeches. The chairman simply did not care!

Davis Davis gave a much more assured performance, especially during questions when he should have ventured away from his lectern.

It was sad to hear the candidates repeat the same old jokes.

[Kate]

The sound problems were pretty inexcusable, and the event should have been put on hold til they were sorted. Note to Sam, the only reason DC 'spoke slowly' was because he'd worked out that the real problem those of us in the gallery were having hearing was a result of the echo. When DD spoke quickly the echo of what he was saying was competing with his real-time speaking. The speakers were switched on in time for us to hear about the last third of DC's speech.

I followed a group of young men out of the hall who appeared to be taking the previously issued 'advice' to tell reporters they were undecided before the hustings, but firmly for DD after. Their take on this was to have an overly loud conversation as they were leaving the hall about how they had been leaning towards DC before hand, but were now definitely voting DD! The furtive glances round to check that they had an audience for these comments kind of gave the game away!

[Editor]

An excellent report Sam. Thank you. I love your idea of picking out the keywords.

[Cllr Graham Smith]

I've heard the amusing story about the late Quentin Hogg on several occasion, but up until now had never come across anyone who admits kneeling at his command. I think David Davis should be applauded for revealing this particular episode in his past.

[Ed R]

Great report. Interesting to read the questions rundowns and 'key words'. Nice one, Sam!

[Nelson, Norfolk]

Vey good report Sam. I hope whoever wins will look at the Boundary issue.

[malcolm]

Once again thank you Sam-a great report! I actually left the meeting very bouyed up, both by the professionalism of both candidates and the size and makeup of the audience who were about as far removed from the stereotypical blue rinse brigade as can be imagined.
I think we can all be proud of of our leadership candidates who both spoke well and are in my opinion both more credible leaders of our party now than they were when the contest started.
Both had high points in their speeches (which I thought Cameron won) and in their answering of questions (where Davis was superior).
Davis spoke particularly well on his analysis of the damage Blair has done to the credibility of the entire political system in this country and on his heartfelt opposition to tuition fees.
The only weak answers (apart from Iraq where I fundamentally disagree with both candidates) came on Pensions and the Lib Dems and again from both candidates.
Some very hard thinking has to be done by our party on both issues and quickly.It is entirely inadequate chaps to believe that people who vote Lib Dem have no idea what they are voting for or that just by working harder we will beat them .
On Pensions I had hoped we could have expected far more from Cameron in particular who merely promised to look at the problem and hadn't ruled anything out,Davis promised to reverse Browns £5 billion raid on tax credits but didn't say how.
In the end though it was the fact that Cameron in my opinion had the better analysis of what our party has to do to actually win an election which has finally persuaded me to vote for him.It not without reservation but for the first time in years I really believe that our partys fortunes are about to change in a very significant way.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I'm not sure Cameron should be interfering with the work of the independent Boundary Commission, particularly when there's already a review taking place.

As for making all constituencies the same size, both geography and demography mean that isn't really feasible. Sounds to me like Cameron is making Blairesque ill-thought off-the-cuff proposals that collapse under the lightest scrutiny (see also: commitment to withdraw from EPP in first week as leader).

[Barbara Villiers]

Has anybody seen the Evening Standard which says that Cameron won the London hustings?

They must live in a parallel universe because actually both candidates were evenly matched. Yet another example of the really rather tedious media bias towards Cameron which may very well end up in a backlash.

I thought Cameron to be a bit subdued though and I didn't have my usual urge to shake him!

All in all, a very good evening for the Party.

[Selsdon Man]

"All in all, a very good evening for the Party."

Not if you were upstairs and could not hear the speeches!

[Mike L]

The Boundary Commission review is 90% complete and the final report is due to be published next summer.

With the new boundaries there will be no bias between the sizes of Tory and Labour constituencies EXCEPT that the new boundaries will be based on year 2000 electorates so movements in population since then are not taken account of.

Step 1 is clearly to get the current review finished and implemented.

In the future the Boundary Commission needs to be expanded so that reviews do not take 6 years to complete.

The problem is they do area by area in sequence. Each area takes about 12-18 months (depending on wheteher there is a public enquiry). That is fine but they need to look at all areas simultaneously so that the whole thing is completed within a couple of years.

[Barbara Villiers]

But Selsdon, I thought you were already decided.

[Samuel Coates]

Actually, Selsdon Man, I was in the very top corner and heard pretty much the whole thing.
Sorry to call you rowdy, I thought it was funny :D

Agree with Barbara that it was fairly even event - hope that came across in the report, though I am fairly Cameron leaning.

[Rick]

and I didn't have my usual urge to shake him!

Posted by: Barbara Villiers | 24 November 2005 at 12:04

Conduct Unbecoming !

[Jack Stone]

The reason the boundarys are bias in favour of Labour is because Labour have always been agressive in there submissions to the commission whereas the tories have not.
If David Cameron is promising a more professional practice by the party than I think that should be welcomed.
There is no bias by the press towards David Cameron. He is getting the better press because he is the best candidate.

[Selsdon Man]

Apology accepted Samuel. I was sat at the front of the balcony and the echo created distortion. It was not funny at the time. Surely, the organisers could have got that right!

As for decided, Barbara, I have not posted anything to that effect. My ballot paper is on the window ledge of my study.

[Barbara Villiers]

Rick,

What part of my conduct was unbecoming? Wanting to shake him? Or not wanting to shake him?!!!

Jack Stone,

I know you are the life president of the David Cameron fan club but even the most disinterested non-Tory voters I know said they have never seen such bias.

[wasp]

There's no bias its just that one candidate is interesting and one is not.

[lambo]

If you sat upstairs, the sound problems were dreadful, and avoidable. It was curious how they could not be sorted out during DD's opening speech but suddenly corrected during DC's....

The story I heard was that the amp had gone, but the volume was fine, it was more akin to a tuning problem, the sound was distorted, like an old cassette so you could only make out about 2 in 3 words spoken. But then it mysteriously got cured!

Good analysis by Sam. However, I thought that although DC spoke in a very polished manner, has improved since question time and won a couple of the questions, DD was the general winner, and on the Lib Dems and drugs I thought he was particularly good.

Message to both DC and DD - New jokes please!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"There is no bias by the press towards David Cameron. He is getting the better press because he is the best candidate."

I would have responded to this sooner but I was distracted by a squadron of flying pigs zooming past my office window.

[Richard Weatherill]

"The reason the boundarys are bias in favour of Labour is because Labour have always been agressive in there submissions to the commission whereas the tories have not."

You may be right, historically, Jack but, as far as the recent exercise is concerned, we certainly did pretty well out of it here in Worcestershire. Roger Pratt, who leads for the Conservative Party on this subject, is a formidable operator whose professionalism is second to none.

[hardly]

"There is no bias by the press towards David Cameron. He is getting the better press because he is the best candidate."

So none of it is because they feel ideologically closer to him, as they did to Ken Clarke?