This is the second of two reports from last night's Cambridge Hustings. Gary Weller has filed already. This latest report comes from Jamie Martin. Jamie is a 21 year old Cambridge student. He lives in North London and has worked for the Conservative Party in his GAP year and in the Research Department while at university.
The seventh hustings in the final stage of the Conservative Party leadership contest were held at Chilford Hall, Linton, Cambridgeshire. The venue, a grand institution, with an illustrious history and links with Britain’s past, had also, judging by the hall in which the hustings were held, recently been modernised to be truly up to date with and functional for the twenty-first century. The omens were, from the very off, clear.
We were, across the evening, presented with two competent but contrasting performances. Davis was confident, bullish in his language of attack against New Labour, but stark in his defence of the party’s core principles; “kill these, and you kill the Conservative Party” he reminded the audience. Cameron, who once more used his advantage of not being anchored to a dispatch box, advocated his two unique selling points excellently. That he is a young, vibrant and fresh leader with a charisma which can reach far and wide outside of Chilford hall, and that he presents a potential answer to the party’s ideological struggle of the past thirty years. No longer must we choose between a pragmatic left or ideological, radical right; Cameron offers radical solutions which will deliver moderate, compassionate Conservative answers.
In front of a large audience, David Davis spoke first and spoke well.
He made clear some of the key themes of his campaign, being most
engaging and attractive when he spoke of helping those on the “first
rung of the opportunity ladder”. He promised that if elected leader he
would “defeat labour over, and over, and over again”, and pointed to
his Home Office record as proof his bite would match his bark. Having
pressed two classic Tory ‘hot buttons’, with a promise of a “double
referendum” on Europe and his pledge to cut taxes, he made a less than
subtle attack on the potential for the party being “image-led”, and
warned about the propensity to “slavishly follow” Tony Blair. In all it
was more competent than the last time I saw Davis in the flesh, the
conference speech to which so many attach the blame for his decline and
fall.
Cameron appeared at ease as he began his speech not only with his now trade mark civil partnership joke, but also with a reference to his widely praised recent performance in interview with Jeremy Paxman - “I had Paxman” he remarked “and I like to think I really had Paxman”. Cameron quickly moved into his smooth, easy but earnest style, in a performance not as commanding as either his impressive launch or conference speech, but which in its focus on the future and optimism, young voters and female voters, drew an important distinction between the two candidates.
Alongside his normal by-lines, of a “modern compassionate Conservatism”, that “if we don’t change, we will lose again” he added a new claim to be the “unity” candidate. He claimed that, with the support of 116 MPs behind him, the party had reached a “consensus” that he was the best man for the job. Showing he knows just how to touch a nerve with Tory grassroots members as well as The Independent leader writers, Cameron seamlessly slipped in a joke involving Enoch Powell and then hinted he would bring William Hague into his front bench team. The latter got the biggest round of applause of the night.
Cameron had made clear that his party would be one with emphasis on the future; he drew a convincing parallel with Mrs Thatcher in 1975, and reminded the room that what wins elections is looking forward not looking back. The party had more women MPs in 1932 than 2005, he reminded us, and we had to reflect our country and have policies in all areas to appeal to all sections of the electorate. His overt commitment to raising the number of female MPs, alongside his snappy sound bite that the party had to care about “climate change as well as crime” summed up a composed performance.
There were around 12 questions asked after the speeches, with the fairly predictable ones on tax and drugs augmented by the more local issue of Stanstead airport and a noted lack of anything on Europe or defence. Indeed, the fact that among the supposedly xenophobic, Europe obsessed Tory membership there were more questions on global warming than the EU might tell us something about how this contest has reinvigorated debate within the party.
Two answers said most about the difference between the two candidates. The Stanstead Airport question, regarding its proposed expansion, told us more about the two men’s differences than their own speeches. Asked would they oppose the expansion, David Davis gave a simple and barely expanded “yes”. David Cameron immediately explained this was just the sort of pressure group politics the party had to be more mature about. It was okay for local MPs to lobby the government, but the party as a whole had to take a broader approach, balancing the views of local residents with the need for more flights to boost our tourist industry and help our business community. You might argue that sounds exactly like something Tony Blair might say. You’d be more accurate to state it sounds like something a Prime Minister might say.
This linked nicely with the other interesting question, on drugs. Davis stated firmly and clearly that he opposed the re-classification of Cannabis, making sensible arguments about the dangers of the drug to health and as a “gate-way” substance. Cameron’s answer, however, suggested a far broader vision. He defended himself against accusations of being “soft” on drugs, and reminded the audience classification issues would be for the shadow cabinet to decide. However, he emphasised the fact any drugs policy must have education of children and rehabilitation of addicts at its very centre. Being ‘tough’ on re-classification simply isn’t in itself a drugs policy. Similarly, on the economy, Mr Cameron reminded his audience that tax was only one part of an economic strategy, and that education and training were vital too. It was the party’s reputation for economic competence he wished to get back.
In their closing remarks, Davis restated his commitment to making the party “idealistic and altruistic” and mentioned the emotive phrase “one nation”. He also urged the party to “fight our corner” and “seek out controversy”. His bullish tones were followed by Cameron’s declaration the Conservatives had a “chance to unify our party, chance to change our party and to win with our party”. He re-emphasised the voters the party needed to get back; women, those under thirty and those in the inner cities.
In truth, both candidates, in their different ways, were impressive. Davis looked every inch the street fighter, and defended his positions well and firmly. Cameron, however, has an extra quality; where Davis sees lower taxes, he sees training, education and a growing economy which benefits all. Where Davis sees tough on drugs, Cameron sees a broad policy which helps the addicts of today and prevents the addicts of tomorrow. Where Davis sees a firm no to Stansted airport, Cameron strikes the chord of a Prime Minister in waiting.
The words “one nation” have been mouthed a lot since 1997. If the Conservative party is truly to win again, it will have to become the party of “one nation”. Not just the rich and the poor, but of women, of those under thirty, of ethnic minorities and those living in the inner cities. Picking a 39 year old leader with no front bench experience who’s been in parliament might appear a risk. After the events of the last two months it increasingly looks like a risk the Conservative Party is willing to take.
Cameron will destroy the party. I am seriously considering sending for a Lib Dem membership application form. Now they have got there act together over tax and have been the true liberal opposition in recent weeks they are worth a look. Cameron isn't a political leader, I shudder to think what we will be saying about him in 5 years.
Posted by: John Coulson | 23 November 2005 at 14:06
"Cameron isn't a political leader, I shudder to think what we will be saying about him in 5 years."
How about... "How gracious of Sir Malcolm Rifkind to offer his predecessor the Northern Ireland portfolio"? ;-)
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 23 November 2005 at 14:12
"Cameron isn't a political leader, I shudder to think what we will be saying about him in 5 years."
John Coulson - in 5 years time they'll be saying it's the fifth anniversary of DC becoming leader. I don't see how you can say the things you do. People like me who drifted out of the party when it lurched to the right under John Major see DC as our only hope. Why join the Lib Dems when you can stay with us and change to win!!
Posted by: Centreground Girl | 23 November 2005 at 14:17
John, it does strike me as strange that if Davis loses, you'll switch to the party that Davis hates most!
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 23 November 2005 at 14:24
While sharing the previous commenters' concerns about a Cameron leadership, I have to say that the LibDems are in no way the answer. While some of the leadership are proper liberals, the vast majority of the membership appear to be old time socialists.
Posted by: Bishop Hill | 23 November 2005 at 14:32
London hustings this evening - Have left all the details at home - having registered for this evening, do I need to just turn up with my membership card? Can somebody also clarify time/venue.
many thanks
Posted by: London Hustings | 23 November 2005 at 14:39
You need a picture ID and the code number given to you at the time of registering to get in. It's at Methodist Central Hall.
Posted by: BEtty Fowler | 23 November 2005 at 14:42
John C - I think a Cameron win will devastate the Lib Dems.
A modern compassionate Conservative Party offering mature politics and value grown policies under a charasmatic, attractive young leader.
Why would there be any need for the Lib Dems at all? They must be truly worried and about time too!
Posted by: michael | 23 November 2005 at 14:44
I hope after December 6th all Conservatives can still debate the merits of various policy ideas or the direction of the party but I hope that we will not get any further talk of the sort we have had on this site that attacks the integity of our new leader and disputes his suitability to lead us.
Anyone who doesn`t believe he can support the leader or give him 100% backing should I think do the decent thing and leave the party.
The party just doesn`t need people who don`t seem to understand the meaning of the words democracy and loyalty.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 23 November 2005 at 14:46
hear hear Jack Stone, time to turn our merciless fire upon the enemy.
John Coulson - if you are planning to defect to the Yellow Peril if DC wins, then I for one shant shed a tear - i doubt many other true Conservatives (who are too loyal and indefatigable to quit so readily as you) would either.
interesting that your email is "[email protected]" - you seem to be mighty fickle.
Posted by: Thomas P | 23 November 2005 at 14:57
that attacks the integity of our new leader and disputes his suitability to lead us.
Don't you mean "Our Beloved Fuehrer" ? I have not heard such adulation outside the newsreels. Jack Stone you should come doen to earth and stop this hyperbole - Cameron is NOT "our new leader" and quite possibly never will be.
Posted by: Rick | 23 November 2005 at 14:59
He's certainly not your's Rick. You've done nothing but knock the Conservative Party for as long as I've read this site.
Be happy!
Posted by: michael | 23 November 2005 at 15:02
"Anyone who doesn`t believe he can support the leader or give him 100% backing should I think do the decent thing and leave the party."
Jack, in the unlikely event that David Davis becomes leader, will you heed your own advice?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 23 November 2005 at 15:14
Anyone who doesn`t believe he can support the leader or give him 100% backing should I think do the decent thing and leave the party. The party just doesn`t need people who don`t seem to understand the meaning of the words democracy and loyalty.
This doesn't really make much sense, does it?
Re the meaning of 'democracy', we can perhaps all agree that Tony Blair has been elected prime minister through democratic means. Does that mean that we must all now support his every action unquestioningly, without criticism or complaint? Of course not. It means that we accept he has a certain sort of authority, but we retain - quite rightly - enough autonomy to agree with him when he's right, and (more frequently) to challenge him when he's wrong.
I don't think our responsibilities, as party members, to the party leader are fundamentally different. If he (or she) is a competent leader, then he will be able to win us round to his way of thinking, even if we didn't start out agreeing with him. And if he's strong and confident enough, he'll also welcome some pretty free debate from within the party. After all, if you can't take constructive criticism from your friends, what hope do you have when confronted with actual enemies?
Finally, in my book anyway, real loyalty can't just be conjured up out of thin air - to be worth anything, it has to be earned.
Still, your suggestion made me smile. Perhaps it could be made retrospective, so that anyone who hasn't completely supported every single leader of the party, without a hint of doubt or criticism, should be purged forthwith? You might well start feeling a bit loney ....
Posted by: Michael Smith | 23 November 2005 at 15:41
He's certainly not your's Rick. You've done nothing but knock the Conservative Party for as long as I've read this site.
Be happy!
Posted by: michael | 23 November 2005 at 15:02
Sure I am not a cheerleader like you Michael. You seem self-satisfied with second-place, but frankly as a voter I am tired of a party taking Short Money and being a disgraceful Opposition and a third-rate campaigning organisation. I am stunned at just how inept professional politicians are and my MP had to work very hard to recapture a long-term Tory seat - the previous candidate could not even manage a 2% swing against an unpopular Labour incumbent.
I have no time for incompetents and I think the Conservative Party has insulted the electorate with some truly pathetic election campaigns, of which 2001 was juvenile.
Posted by: Rick | 23 November 2005 at 15:57
I notice that while people have attacked my thoughts over the Lib Dems on the basis of loyalty no one has actually given me a reason on policy as to why I shouldn't. If the Lib Dems move, as they seem to be, from the planned economy to a truly liberal one then I will certainly join them over a DC lead Tory Party.
Posted by: John Coulson | 23 November 2005 at 19:09
"John Coulson - in 5 years time they'll be saying it's the fifth anniversary of DC becoming leader. I don't see how you can say the things you do. People like me who drifted out of the party when it lurched to the right under John Major see DC as our only hope. Why join the Lib Dems when you can stay with us and change to win!!"
Ah yes that well known right-wing extremist John Major. Didn't he have right-wing extremist policies like raising taxes? Or was that the Lib Dems? Or was it just the Lib Dems who said that their tax rising policies were a mistake (because they harmed their party's prospects)? Oh, I really can't remember but I am very impressed with the intellectual contribution of some of the Cameron supporters on this site, Centreground Girl in particular. Change to win becuase DC isn't a right-wing extremist like John Major. Very, very impressive thought that.
Posted by: confused "right-wing" "extremist" | 23 November 2005 at 20:03
"People like me who drifted out of the party when it lurched to the right under John Major see DC as our only hope."
Hmm...I must have been asleep, since I do not recall this phase of the Conservative Party at all.
Posted by: John Hustings | 23 November 2005 at 20:55
Jack,
We are still waiting to hear if you will wholeheartedly support the Party if David Davis wins.
If not you know what you can do - follow your own advice!
Posted by: Barbara Villiers | 23 November 2005 at 21:09
"lurched to the right under John Major"
This would be when the party became more moderate and less ideological in its policies, and more consensual in its approach than under Thatcher?!?
Or was another John Major leader when I wasn't looking?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 23 November 2005 at 21:13
"I notice that while people have attacked my thoughts over the Lib Dems on the basis of loyalty no one has actually given me a reason on policy as to why I shouldn't. If the Lib Dems move, as they seem to be, from the planned economy to a truly liberal one then I will certainly join them over a DC lead Tory Party. "
Could you please take John Bercow and the Tory wets with you?
Posted by: John Hustings | 23 November 2005 at 21:19
"Or was another John Major leader when I wasn't looking?"
Centreground Girl was clearly referring to the goose-stepping swastika-covered skinhead John Major that was rejected by the BNP as being too extremist! ;-)
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 23 November 2005 at 21:24
"Jack, we are still waiting to hear if you will wholeheartedly support the Party if David Davis wins."
It's ok Babs, I wasn't expecting a response from Jack - he never does respond when you challenge him or point out his hypocrisy. I expect he was just taking the opportunity to let the Cameronites' 'conform or bugger off' agenda rear its ugly head again.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 23 November 2005 at 21:30
Excellent report, Jamie. Many thanks for your effort.
Posted by: Alastair Matlock | 23 November 2005 at 22:37