Charles Moore begins his article of today - endorsing David Cameron - with this paragraph:
"Call me new-fashioned, but I was disappointed when I logged on to the websites of David Davis and David Cameron at 9am yesterday to find that neither had yet posted anything about the BBC debate between the two candidates the night before. Shouldn't each David have been claiming victory, looking for momentum, calling for further debates? It was a bit 20th century to have to wait for the newspapers to get the reaction."
Someone needs to tell Mr Moore about this blog! The 21st century
bloggers produced 2,164 hits on this site from 10.35pm on Thursday
until 2am on Friday morning. We haven't quite rivalled QT's 2.5m
viewers but you have to start somewhere.
Mr Moore is right, however, to note the inadequacy of the campaign websites. DC's website (although the most attractive and comprehensive of all the sites) still doesn't mention the debate - it has gone as quiet as DD's campaign blog went during the Blackpool conference. A six day silence on the DD campaign blog was then blamed on technical difficulties.
If Charles Moore was to visit DD's revamped site today he would discover that the site now offers a lot of stuff about QT (see here (plus here and here and here and here and here on the campaign blog)).
Go to Liam Fox's site and
you wouldn't know that the great doctor had been eliminated from the
race. Chris Grayling's talking head (hero of last week's De-Blunketting) is still there making the case for Liam. Ken Clarke's
site does acknowledge that their man has lost. In the right-hand
margin this appears:
"Thank you for your support over the last few months. The website will remain up and running until mid-November should you wish to access any information."
Peter Oborne still appears at the top of the site, however, arguing that Ken Clarke's candidacy has "collapsed his rivals". Not quite, Peter!
For those still wanting to vote for Mr Clarke there's a campaign to write him onto the ballot paper. For those unsure who to support you might like to visit the Who Should You Vote For? site. I thought the questions it asked were too narrow to be useful but it's harmless fun.
And whom were you instructed to vote for, Mr. Editor?
Posted by: Tom Ainsworth | 05 November 2005 at 14:21
David Davis, Mr Ainsworth.
Posted by: Editor | 05 November 2005 at 14:25
Well I can't say I'm surprised. I, who consider myself a staunch Cameron supporter, only came out marginally in favour of him (+3).
If one answers neutral for everything except answering "strongly agree" to "The Convervative leader should be broadly Eurosceptic", it tells you to vote for Davis by +9. I think the test is biased!
Posted by: Tom Ainsworth | 05 November 2005 at 14:33
It also lacks questions on the compassionate/ international aspects of conservatism which are the areas where I favour David Cameron over David Davis.
Posted by: Editor | 05 November 2005 at 14:41
Good fun, though. Perhaps you should design your own version? At least once you've decided whom you'll be voting for! ;-)
Posted by: Tom Ainsworth | 05 November 2005 at 14:54
I got 0...Though I am a cameron supporter as the age thing issue is hugely important...
Posted by: Jaz | 05 November 2005 at 15:05
I got +12 for Davis...
Posted by: James Maskell | 05 November 2005 at 19:19
It's not a very good test - though I did come out strongly for Cameron which was reassuring. :)
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 05 November 2005 at 19:25
While I support Mr Cameron, the test found me in favour of Mr Davis. I think this is because there is one gaping hole. I will not be voting on policy because the public won't be either.
Cameron's policies are not so bad that a typical Conservative cannot support them, but they are weaker than Davis'. What is important, though, is who could become Prime Minister. The public will vote for Cameron, not based on policies, but based on charisma, character and appearance (no matter how much we wish it weren't so) so a Cameron-led Conservative party can get elected while a Davis-led party would do little better than Mr Howard.
Posted by: Gavin Ayling | 05 November 2005 at 19:32
Charles Moore was more likely login on to the respective web site to see if there was any news about himself rather than anything else. What a ponse!
Posted by: pigmalian | 05 November 2005 at 20:34
"I will not be voting on policy because the public won't be either."
Evidence for this? Or at least a rationale?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 05 November 2005 at 20:39
Oh, and +55 for Davis.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 05 November 2005 at 20:40
A poor image or impression is likely to be more off-puting than policy....
Take the libdem leader...hes quite a nice guy..people recgnise that and voted LD...but if you look at LD policy it actually talks bullshits....
Same for Davis...he can preach about taxes...but he'll never be able to throw off that "punch em'up" Tory impression...
Posted by: Jaz | 05 November 2005 at 22:36
On the whole "is policy necessary?" debate I know Ive already stated my position on more than one occassion but Im sure it wont hurt (apart from taking me a few more key-strokes towards RSI) to make the point again.
This contest is to find the right person with the right direction for the Party. Now when it comes to direction I am not just looking for a simple "Im a moderniser". Im looking for more than that.
Relating this to Business, essentially we are picking a CEO. When they are chosen, the panel (which would be the membership) wants to know what to expect from this CEO. They want to know what makes this person tick and what drives them. Cameron as a candidate would face criticism in front of a panel because he is not giving enough detail about what he believes and how that would drive his position and the business in the wider context.
As for Davis, he has given detail for the panel by stating his positions. He has not shied away from a single issue and has been co-operative.
Thats why we are criticisng him. How can we make a proper choice if we dont have all the information?
Posted by: James Maskell | 06 November 2005 at 13:01
Just watched both Liam Fox & John Major on ITV - both used the word "direction" and both said (trying hard not to show preference between DC & DD) that putting detailed policies forward was a bad idea.
James, I think we could and should expect more openess and policy from DC on what he would do to change the party; thats the job he'd do the day after being elected. I would like more on how he would act as Leader of the Opposition (where his policy of driving a wedge between Blair and the Labour Party by careful support of Blairs more Conservative proposals looks a good strategy) but even a CEO wouldn't have detail on where to go in 4 years.
A CEO would say his strategy was to extend the product range, move into emerging markets, expand through organic rather than inorganic growth - business recognises the difference between strategy (direction) and this years trading. DD's dog whistle campaign for the leadership demonstrates to me (and maybe David Willetts) that he doesn't have what it takes to change the perception of this party so we win.
Posted by: Ted | 06 November 2005 at 14:19
But the thing is that Cameron isn't even showing a consistent direction. He'll criticise giving out detailed policies now, but then appears to have done just that on the environment. He's said we need to reduce the amount of regulation our businesses are subject to, but then proposes shackling them with environmental regulations. As messages go, it's all very mixed.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 06 November 2005 at 15:02
Unsurpisingly I got + 81 for Davis
Posted by: Richard Allen | 06 November 2005 at 18:37
Sorry James, only just noticed your question.
I work, sadly, in an office loaded with people who voted Labour because Blair's "nice" and the Tories aren't. My rationale, I am afraid, is based entirely on that!
Posted by: Gavin Ayling | 08 November 2005 at 21:59
congratulations mr byrne. its a pity your colleagues who lost their seats did,t take a few tips from your suscescful campaign, and then we wouldn't have this shower running the country. mark my words it,ll all end in tears i give it upwards of 2 years.and please explain to me why your not a candidate for the labour party leadership?
Posted by: Sanjay | 10 July 2012 at 07:05