Hustings Report (2): Solihull

The second Hustings Report is written by Richard Weatherill - the Chairman of West Worcestershire Conservative Association.

TOO CIVIL BY HALF?

"At one point this evening, David Cameron suggested that, since they were seeing much more of each other than of their spouses at the moment, he and David Davis should consider entering into a Civil Partnership.

“Civil” is probably the best word to describe this encounter, which was a strangely low-key event. Chaired by the urbane Paul Marland, in front of an audience of some 550 activists, the husting helped me not one iota in deciding who to vote for as the new leader. At the same time, it left me feeling proud to be a Conservative.

The format of the evening was a 10-minute opening statement by each candidate (DC going first), followed by 14 pre-written questions from the floor and, finally, a 3-minute summing up by the two Davids. The questions had to be “addressed equally to both candidates”, which made it difficult (for example) to ask DC what he would do if some Conservative MEPs ignored his instruction to leave the EPP-ED group in the European Parliament.

The opening statements added little to the sum of human knowledge being, in the main, restatements of the candidates’ known positions, as outlined in their ‘manifestos’ sent out with the ballot papers. Cameron appealed to both Churchill and Thatcher as agents of change, claimed that he could best unite the party and that he had the clearest sense of direction. Davis was scathing about Blair and said that the Conservatives needed to be “the champions of those whom the State has failed”. He contrasted “image-led strategy” with “battle-hardened experience”.

Questions were on: the realism of tax cuts; policy on climate change; winning back the inner cities; drug classification; top-up fees; the West Lothian question (English/Welsh-only votes); fighting Gordon Brown (DC: “a dour, grim cove”); stemming the decline in UK manufacturing; the wisdom of the Iraq war; how to regain the female vote; places in the Shadow Cabinet; the Lib Dem threat; promoting affordable housing; ID cards. Both candidates declined to answer any further questions about their underwear.

In most cases, with the candidates alternating in the order they responded, there was precious little to choose between their positions. Cameron again made a virtue of being less specific on tax cuts, but the clearest disagreement was on student top-up fees (Cameron in favour; Davis against). Davis laid down a hard line on drugs policy, but the Cameron case – for a policy that actually works – was clearly argued. Incidentally, it seems that each would offer, and accept, a place in the other’s Shadow Cabinet.

In terms of style, Cameron spoke without notes and away from his lectern throughout the evening. Davis stuck to the lectern, but abandoned it for the final summing-up phase. Davis made more jokes, but the biggest laugh of the evening was provoked by David Cameron:

Q:     If a Labour candidate and a Lib Dem candidate stood together on the edge of a cliff, which would you push over first?

A:     The Labour candidate. After all, business comes before pleasure!

Overall, Cameron was stronger on policy than I had expected, which went some way towards nullifying David Davis’s charge of image over substance.

Never mind Thatcher or Churchill – the sure-fire way of wringing applause out of this audience was the merest mention of William Hague. Seems a Shadow Cabinet post is his for the asking, whoever wins. Meanwhile, I’ll be tossing a coin before December 5th."

Comments

[Alastair Matlock]

Very well written and informative, Richard. Many thanks.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Cameron appears to have stolen Jonathan Sheppard's joke!

Since I’m a libertarian with conservative sympathies on some issues, I couldn't care less who leads this doomed rump, but cannot in any case see the point of having THREE social democratic Fabian parties in one country, which is exactly what would happen under Mr. Cameron. Only two of them can survive, and the Tories are the one least likely to do so.

[Samuel Coates]

"Only two of them can survive, and the Tories are the one least likely to do so."
The biggest party in local and European government as well as England, which has been in existence for hundreds of years, won't survive an unpopular, divided Labour party?

From another anon.
Well done with your Fabian comment previous anon. Let's have more blatant right wing bosh on this site. Maybe then we can level this playing feild.

Having said that I may aswell pin my colours to the mast to prevent Blair gaining more em-Pyrrhic Victories.
The Tory party is the ONLY thing that is likely to survive after the Blair/Bush twin towers rug has been pulled from under us, because they have both become expendable.
So it doesn't matter who leads the Tories a year or two from now, which is when the next General election is going to happen, as long as he keeps Trident.
Davis is on record in the Paxman interview that he will do so, so expect Cameron to follow suit this Thursday.

[buxtehude]

A much better, fairer, report. Thank you.

"Since I’m a libertarian with conservative sympathies on some issues, I couldn't care less who leads this doomed rump, but cannot in any case see the point of having THREE social democratic Fabian parties in one country, which is exactly what would happen under Mr. Cameron. Only two of them can survive, and the Tories are the one least likely to do so."

"Well done with your Fabian comment previous anon. Let's have more blatant right wing bosh on this site. Maybe then we can level this playing feild."

Maybe we could apply the Editor's 'And' theory: can we not avoid becoming another Fabian party (I agree with this critique) without it being 'right wing bosh'? Conservative AND civilised?

[Derek]

Richard, thanks for a very interesting and balanced report. You say that the questions were pre-written. By that do you mean that they were handed in by the audience prior to the meeting? In the first meeting we were told that Roger Helmer was able to ask his own question, so was it on the lines of Question Time, where the questioner reads out their question on being called on by the chairman? It's useful to know these details in advance so we can be prepared.

[Cllr Graham Smith]

On booking in, delegates are handed a proforma on which to submit their questions.
The Chairman reads out a selection of the questions that have been submitted in writing by the audience.

[michael]

BBC News last night interviewed 3 party members before they entered the hustings: 1 Cameron supporter, 1 floating voter and 1 Davis supporter.

The BBC then interviewed them after the hustings. They had become:

3 Cameron supporters!!!

Well done David Cameron - keep it up.

[CJ]

One thing that's slightly concerning me about these hustings (and granted there have only been two so far, but this still applies) is the low turnout. Is this to do with the time they are being held, the locations, or a combination of these things? Looking at what I assume to be estimated figures from the two reports only about 850 members have attended. At the last leadership election there was a hustings at the Town Hall in Cheltenham which was oversubscribed - the Town Hall holds 1,000 people. I hope the next ones are better attended than this.

[Gareth]

I thought Cameron performed better, but not comfortably so.

Davis hits predictable buttons well, but it just sounds old hat. It would have won him the contest in 2001 but, my sense is, that the party has moved on. He hits home-runs when he criticises Cameron for not having policies and aping Blair. On the other hand, delivery of his stump speech was poor and he sounds ever so slightly smug when he talks about his experience. He was an M.P. for 10 years of tory government afterall but never made it into the cabinet.

Cameron certainly has an exposed flank on the lack of policy front. I think he's right not to be too policy specific but it does weaken him in this contest. I got the sense though that the vast majority of the audience were willing him to do well. They know they're taking a gamble on him but they feel there's something indefinably special about him and they're prepared to risk it.

Until yesterday, I've taken all the members' polls with a pinch of salt, particularly since they're all internet based which must bias the sample in favour of younger members. After last night though, I'm pretty confident Cameron is ahead. The support for him was palpable. Davis was received politely but without any real enthusiasm. The biggest cheer though was for Hague!

[michael]

The biggest cheer is always for Hague! Am never quite sure why much as I like him.

The YouGov polls seem to have it about right I think.

Gareth - I think your analysis is very balanced - but I do think Davis is often in danger of sounding smug - that was my impression from the Question Time debate. Confident yes, but confidence that just looked a little bit smug.

I am biased though.

[wasp]

Yeah I never get the Hague thing, the man led the party to its worst ever election result. I like him and I think he'd be a great home secretary but not that much.

[Gareth]

Michael,

I'm biased too and, naturally, one has to be careful when anlaysing the performance of one's own candidate.

The biggest reservation I have about Cameron, is his performance in debates. His set-piece speaking is excellent. He's excellent on TV, but he seems weak in debate. I hope this is due to the particular circumstances of this election.

As I have said, I think the refusal to give detailed policy positions, whilst right, is a tactical weakness Davis makes much of. The 'heir to Blair' charge is also an attack Davis exploits well. Both these taunts should evaporate once he's installed as leader. On the other hand, Davis is not an amazing performer himself, and to be out-debated by Davis, as he was on QT, is not encouraging.

[michael]

Gareth, I think you're right - Cameron is limited in debate with Davis - because Cameron has adopted the right strategy in think about the longer-term and how to appeal to floating voters.

Davis is being tactically clever but strategically stupid. He has no such constraint and is pushing all the old tory populist buttons.

What we Tories sometimes see as a strength - voters generally can view to be a weakness. In Davis we see a good debater, the public may see a know it all.

The QT Time debate was good in that Cameron was clearly nervous - it show he wants this.

[James Turner]

Gareth: "Davis hits predictable buttons well, but it just sounds old hat. It would have won him the contest in 2001 but, my sense is, that the party has moved on."

Exactly. The thing about the core vote strategy is that in an internal election, it's got a chance! Davis's problem is that it's dawned on the members that it won't win a general election. Plus, in my experience it's not always members generally who are the most rightwing, since they engage in discussions, stand for the council, do canvassing and deal with people of other political persuasions. The most rightwing group are the tribal voters (but not members) - my mother, for example, worships Mrs Thatcher, goes out of her way to vote Conservative all the way down to town council by-elections and hates "socialists" and "politically correct idiots", but when I asked if she would join her local party she acted like it was a ridiculous idea (not enough time, and why would she want to hang around at coffee mornings with the local wealthy housewives? - a stereotype I know but it pretty accurately reflects at least theire local ward committee). I suspect there are many more like that, and I think it was people like that who ended up responding to the Populous poll.

[michael]

James, I think you make a very good point. There is a distiction between core voters and Party members. I'm finding members who are saying I like Davis, but I think Cameron will have wider appeal and I've voted for him.

Like MPs, Party members have realised who we need to elect to win.

It's really great to be a Tory at the moment.

[Peter]

Michael can you answer this one what section of the country is Cameron going for with his flat tax idea. David Davis with his plan actually goes for a lot more voters who up to this time would not vote for us but then you may think IHT, SD and CGT are only taxes paid by the super rich?

[Lancake]

Gareth's view that Cameron is ahead and has support among older members mirrors my experience. We had a small ward do in north-west London last week. About 30 members, plus an MP who invited himself along from the Cameron campaign (tells its own story - nobody from the Davis campaign has been in touch with our association).

We were a mix of older local stalwarts and younger members. I conducted a straw poll of the room and all but 2 present were voting (or had already voted) for Cameron. A few of the old buggers I would have expected to be Davis supporters, turned out to be Cameroons.

Very revealing I thought, even though it was unscientific.

[Phillip]

There seemed to be a bit of a buzz at this hustings event; I think we have turned the corner (about bloody time!). Although there was not much between the two Davids, after last night I have decided to vote Cameron. Why? Because I think we need a clean break from the last Tory government and Cameron is the better TV performer.

I just hope that the same old MPs that briefed against Hague and IDS shut up and get on with the business of winning the next election. The membership is up for it. Are the MPs???

[michael]

The important thing for me, is that tax relief is part of a much broader economic strategy which is credible with voters.

Tax relief must be seen as a means to an end. Not an end in itself.

People don't believe us on Tax cuts anymore. They think all politicians raise taxes and only hear the word 'CUTS' as something Conservatives want to do to public services.

The way Davis has boxed himself in on this is one of the reasons William Hague isn't supporting him.

[Gareth]

Peter,

I don't think the voters believe any politician who promises to cut their taxes. We lost all credibility on taxes between 1992 and 1997 and Blair has well and truly lost his.

We've offered huge tax cuts in the last 3 elections and yet been trounced. DD's extravagant tax-cutting promises sound hollow and, unfortunately, old-fashioned.

We've got a hell of a lot of economic credibility to earn before we can be taken seriously on tax cuts. Starting the job of re-earning the voters' trust on the economy by making uncosted promises to cut taxes is a grave error.

[Peter]

So then Michael and Garth both your parents don't own their own homes and with that be pissed off if most of that money goes back to the government, i'm sure Brown will be rubbing his hands with glee? Also Michael the Cameron supporters wan't tax cuts so you must be in the postition of not being able to vote for neither candidate?

[Sean Fear]

Societies whose economies are growing steadily are generally happier places than societies whose economies are stagnant or in decline.

If we want to have an economy that grows steadily in the future, then we need to reduce the level of taxation and regulation.

We have a government which has done nothing to strengthen our economy (apart from giving the B of E independence in setting interest rates), yet has steadily spent the fruits of the economic success whih they inherited from us. As a result the economy is gradually seizing up. The private sector has not been creating net jobs now for about 3 years. Productivity growth, particularly in the public sector, has been appallingly bad.

Hence, tax reductions, as part of a wider package of economic liberalisation, are essential - and the next Conservative leader should be making that case.