Earlier today Wat Tyler reported from Frimley. The second Frimley report comes from Mark Fulford....
Lakeside International, home of darts, hosted the 8th hustings. It turned out to be a very good humoured event, with even the car park providing comedy moments as 600 over 70’s parked their Rovers.
The support teams for both camps were well organized, although the Davis team had more goodies to give out. The opening statements from each candidate were very similar to what’s been reported from previous hustings.
David Cameron opened up exactly on-time with his trademark relaxed style and stage-roving command of the room. He told us an amusing anecdote about how, on this very spot, Eric Bristow conquered the world at 23. Having reminded us that youth won, ‘conquering’ lead neatly into the Paxman interview, which got a huge cheer. Then came the dreaded civil partnership joke and a good laugh, but definite pained looks from hustings staff. David Cameron went on to tell us that Labour isn’t frightened of the party that it’s already beaten three times: we need to change; for example we need caring policies on childcare and the environment :- issues that are vital to many people, but fringe to the party. David Cameron claimed the judgement to know when to stand up to New Labour and when to support them for the good of the country.
David Davis was very relaxed, but didn’t surprise us by leaving his lectern. He opened by telling us that if we expected him to throw darts at David Cameron, we’d be disappointed: this is a friendly campaign although, with all this talk of civil partnerships, he’d have to be careful or people would start talking. That got some quiet tittering from odd sections. He then gave us his three Davids joke too. Then it was on to the meat: David Davis told us: he represents the end of spin and the beginning of truth and conviction; to bring Blair down we don’t ape him, we vote against him; we need a battle-hardened leader with enduring principles that will defeat labour over and again.
There were then 12 questions, and it would bore you to death to detail them all. There was no dodging from either David, both were very clear with their answers. I felt that David Cameron was better received. He always got audience-wide laughs and claps, while David Davis’s punch-points sometimes only got faltering applause.
Both Davids agreed that our MEPs must pull out of the EPP. David Cameron said that the timing would be his Foreign Secretary’s judgement. David Davis said that a written order to pull out would contradict previous instructions, but that he’d give verbal instructions to MEPs to transfer out within two years. I don’t doubt that a verbal instruction from David Davis is more enforceable than a written one!
There was a drugs question which both men answered without incident. David Cameron wants classroom visits, powerful advertising (remember Aids: Don’t die of ignorance?) and addicts to get residential rehab. David Davis wants addicts to have the choice of residential rehab or prison, and cannabis reverted to class B so it’s clearly illegal. Both stressed that these aren’t soft options.
There was the question of a hung-parliament and a pact with Lib-Dems. David Cameron said he fought to win and he’d add Lib-Dem pacts to the motto that you should try everything once, except incest and morris dancing. David Davis first said that he hates Lib-Dems and couldn’t contemplate a pact, but slowly he brought himself around with a suggestion that if the left and right of Lib-Dems split (as would be likely), he could possibly talk to the nicer half.
On the subject of defence, both candidates pushed the right buttons about the government’s failure to support our forces properly and the wrong of decommissioning fighting units. However, I was surprised when David Cameron also said that families of serving mums and dads are effectively single-parent families - and we should recognize the debt that we owe the armed-forces by making special provision for their families. I was brought up in Colchester, a big garrison town, and he’s bang on the mark here.
In closing, David Cameron focused on winning back the Lib-Dem vote. He told us that he had the energy, vigour and appetite for victory against Labour. David Davis said that he had the resilience, skill and endurance to not only handle Labour’s 100 day onslaught, but also to counter-attack. David Davis said that Tony Blair was a clever politician, but he would take him apart with an attack of high principles.
So did any of my views change during this meeting? Yes, in the presence of the man, I acquired a gut feeling that I wouldn’t get on very well with David Cameron. Part of my life is spent skippering yachts on long passages, and in that my instincts have done me well. As a crew member I’d take David Davis every time. In a blow, he’d pull his weight. At other times his non-PC humour, such as “the gentleman in Whitehall never knows best, least of all Patricia Hewitt”, would entertain me. He’d also make exactly the same errors that we made in the last three elections. To win, the Conservative Party needs a communicator who can handle the media and whose natural language and emphasis is optimistic, inspirational and inclusive. For me, that man is David Cameron.
I have njoyed the account of the latest hustings. I must say that I am very pleased that I voted for Cameron and have never have regretted the decision.
Dare I say it, I am a PC Conservative at heart!
In a nutshell, DC speaks to me about issues that I believe in, and DD speaks to me about issues where in some instances, I beg to differ.
Posted by: Terry Keen | 23 November 2005 at 22:41
If DC doesn't win (we can but hope) then perhaps he will take up a part in one of the television soaps. His ability to deliver someone else's lines in a convincing manner would make him ideal. Maybe DC can become the new Mitchell brother on Eastenders. DC has a history of losing his cool with people and being aggressive when not gettiing his own way - perfect. So, at least in this role he would be able to bring some of his own character to bear on the lines he remembers.
Posted by: John Coulson | 23 November 2005 at 23:48
If DC is going to leave the EPP question to his shadow foreign secretary - who's been promised that job? Ken Clarke?
Posted by: Puzzled of Tunbridge Wells | 24 November 2005 at 07:54
It's only the timing he's leaving to his Foreign Secretary...
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 24 November 2005 at 08:18
Enjoyed your report Mark, perhaps today isn't such a good day to compare yourself to Eric Bristow though!
Is it comparable to say you think that DD is like selecting a top range Volvo over DC's Ferrari?
Posted by: a-tracy | 24 November 2005 at 09:46
"It's only the timing he's leaving to his Foreign Secretary..."
The point is that could mean tomorrow, or in two years' time, which wouldn't be so far from Davis's position.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 24 November 2005 at 09:58
From today's Telegraph
"Rumours have been rife that in order to hammer home his Eurosceptic credentials, Mr Cameron would pull Tory MEPs out of the EPP before Christmas.
Addressing a meeting of 1,000 Tory members in Frimley, Surrey, yesterday, Mr Cameron replied "yes" when asked about withdrawal.
But he appeared to avoid revealing his timetable by delegating the issue to his future foreign affairs spokesman if he won the leadership.
His aides immediately insisted that their candidate was using the same form of words he had always used on the issue. "There is no backtracking," said a spokesman.
The spokesman insisted that "if David Cameron becomes leader, we will leave the EPP" but in a dig at Mr Davis for over-detailed policy pledges, he said it would be "a mistake to set out a precise timetable".
SOUNDS LIKE WOBBLING!
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 24 November 2005 at 10:23
A lot of Eurosceptics will have plumped for DC on the basis of the clarity of his promise to withdraw asap from the EPP. I agreed with Martin Callanan when he said it was the only firm commitment extracted from either candidate during this election. For DC to start wobbling before he's even been elected is not a good sign. Not good at all.
Posted by: Having second thoughts | 24 November 2005 at 11:49
"The spokesman insisted that "if David Cameron becomes leader, we will leave the EPP" but in a dig at Mr Davis for over-detailed policy pledges, he said it would be "a mistake to set out a precise timetable"."
Didn't Cameron say something along the lines of 'we will withdraw from the EPP-ED within a week'?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 24 November 2005 at 11:57
FLIP
FLOP
FLIP
FLOP
Is David Cameron really John Kerry minus the experience and distinguished head of hair?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 24 November 2005 at 12:00
"Didn't Cameron say something along the lines of 'we will withdraw from the EPP-ED within a week'?"
That is what a lot of Eurosceptics believe and is the reason why they have voted for Cameron. Dan Hannan told me that it was the deciding factor for him and several of his colleagues.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 24 November 2005 at 12:01
I posted on this earlier under the "Cameron more popular than Blair" thread. Since attention there has turned to a detailed analysis of a joke about the Empire State Building, perhaps that was the wrong place to do it. So, to be a bore & repeat myself:
Given what Cameron is saying about allowing his Foreign Affairs team to sort out the EPP withdrawal date, I think we can guess that Liam Fox will continue to be shadow Foreign Secretary. He was the first to promote this idea, and it sounds as if Cameron is going to leave it to him make it work.
Here's hoping that Michael Gove ends up in the Foreign Affairs team as well.
The style of Cameron's leadership is going to be very interesting. He has now said that he will leave drugs policy to the party and the date of withdrawal from the EPP to his Shadow Foreign Secretary. There's a lot of delegation going on. That may be no bad thing, particularly if it means that the overall front bench team looks stronger as a result. But is does beg a few questions about what the issues are that he will impose a lead on if he thinks it necessary. Where are his lines in the sand?
There's also the obvious danger that he will leave it to others to do the hard work, take the credit when it goes well, and allocate blame elsewhere if it doesn't.
***
If Cameron does wobble on this it will be a serious dent to his credibility. Leaders sometimes need to take a firm line with a wing of their Party. But they should do so on the basis of a clear disagreement over principle. This risks being a case of his word not meaning all that it seemed to. He would truly be a successor to Blair.
Posted by: Simon C | 24 November 2005 at 12:01
I suspect Cameron's leadership would be more flop than flip. He's performed so many U-turns, it's like he's in a female sheep rolling competition. (Another play on words for you, Grandpa Hayek.)
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 24 November 2005 at 12:05
Roger Helmer told a gathering of Lincolnshire Conservatives that Cameron had promised to withdraw within the first week.
Posted by: Simon C | 24 November 2005 at 12:05
"Both Davids agreed that our MEPs must pull out of the EPP. David Cameron said that the timing would be his Foreign Secretary’s judgement. David Davis said that a written order to pull out would contradict previous instructions, but that he’d give verbal instructions to MEPs to transfer out within two years."
That seems like a new Davis policy to me. Am I right?
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 24 November 2005 at 12:06
"Roger Helmer told a gathering of Lincolnshire Conservatives that Cameron had promised to withdraw within the first week."
I had heard that too. It contrasts with the Frimley statement. Are pro-EPP MEPs revolting (against leaving!) in private?
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 24 November 2005 at 12:08
On the Davis point, we were told at the same conference that DD was telling eurosceptic MEPs that he would pull out within 2 years, but that he was also giving reassuring messages to those MEPs who wanted to stay in. There was therefore some measure of uncertainty. In contrast Cameron's then position (this was November 5) was seen as admirably clear.
Posted by: Simon C | 24 November 2005 at 12:12
"Are pro-EPP MEPs revolting (against leaving!) in private?"
There's nothing very private about it, Selsdon Man. A couple of our West Midlands MEPs (Martin Harbour and Philip Bushill-Matthews) signed a letter to The Times (I think - I don't have it to hand) a couple of weeks ago, advising against withdrawing from the EPP. Robert Atkins, amongst others, has also made his views perfectly clear.
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | 24 November 2005 at 12:15
As has Giles Chichester, who claims we'll lose "influence" outside the EPP.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 24 November 2005 at 12:22
This promise appears to have been made to shore up credibility with the Right of the party. It would be very dangerous indeed to undermine that should he win as there are many doubts in that quarter about him. That is why I am sure he won't break the promise. Contrary to Peter Riddell, it would be politically insane for him to do so, alienating a key part of the parliamentary and voluntary party. The Labour Party will say "anti-Europe"
but so what, he's saying Tories pull out of the EPP, not UK pull out of the EU.
Posted by: anon | 24 November 2005 at 12:32
"In contrast Cameron's then position (this was November 5) was seen as admirably clear."
Remember Remember the 5th of November!
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 24 November 2005 at 13:03