That is the question raised by an article in today's Daily Telegraph:
"Last night, the Cameron team were attempting to exploit rumours of mounting "disarray" in the Davis inner circle by saying they had held discussions with Andrew Mackay, a Davis supporter, who they expect to defect in the next few days. Mr Mackay, who refused to comment, is married to Julie Kirkbride, a key member of the Davis team who is believed to be unhappy over his failure to consult colleagues on policy announcements on tax and pensions."
The Telegraph continues:
"Tory MPs also claimed that David Willetts, the shadow trade secretary who came out in support of Mr Davis in September, had "gone to ground" and was refusing to offer public backing to Mr Davis over his tax-cutting policy. Mr Willetts was unavailable for comment last night."
There have been rumours of defections for some time. The core vote strategy of recent days has appeared to further unsettle some of Mr Davis' more centrist supporters.
Noon update: A source close to David Davis has just emailed me with the following: "This is complete rubbish and something obviously placed in the Telegraph by our opponents. A Telegraph journalist phoned Andrew Mackay yesterday and he completely denied the story. The Telegraph then quoted Mackay as not commenting, which was a total fabrication. Need we say more?"
I expect defections to be announced shortly before the Question Time debate and the posting of the ballot papers.
The key question is "are these new defections or deferred from the second round of voting?"
Did DC ask his defectors to vote for DD to keep Fox out? We should be told as Private Eye would say.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 02 November 2005 at 11:18
Blunkett resigns. Rejoice! Rejoice!
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 02 November 2005 at 11:24
I had a look at the bbc blog after Blunketts resignation.It was about 50 to one against Blunkett which was great.I wondered if the BBC misjudges the political leanings of many of its viewers.Then again in my worst nightmares these people might hate him because he's too rightwing!
Posted by: malcolm | 02 November 2005 at 11:33
Blunkett was too authoritarian (Big Brother state) for my taste.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 02 November 2005 at 11:36
"Then again in my worst nightmares these people might hate him because he's too rightwing!"
That's why Labour supporters hate him. Tough luck.
Of course, the reason he fell was that Blair had no reason to stand by him. They had been friends, but Blunkett was getting in the way of Blair's plans for Incapacity Benefit.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 November 2005 at 11:40
Davis' double referendum / Open Europe policy is coming from Rodney Leach and Neil O'Brien at "Open Europe".
Mitchell has asked O'Brien to write DDs speeches on Europe and since O'Brien works for Open Europe, the phrase seems to recur!!
Posted by: a | 02 November 2005 at 12:03
"The Telegraph then quoted Mackay as not commenting, which was a total fabrication. Need we say more?"
The Telegraph spinning the news agenda for people it likes? Well, it wouldn't be the first time (see their "right to fight back" camapign, with its suspect use fo case history to bolster Patrick Mercer's bill last year).
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 November 2005 at 12:09
Talking about David Blunkett. As home secretary he was touting biometric identity cards, and on leaving government he buys shares in DNA Biosciences. I am not an expert on the businesses that DNA Biosciences run, but it does just look completely stupid.
I mean if the Energy Minister was to put forward proposals for Nuclear power plants, then leave government and buy shares in nuclear energy, would this be breaking the law?
What are the rules on this matter, because if Blunkett can resign and get away with this kind of madness, I think he has got off quite lightly.
Posted by: Stephen Alley | 02 November 2005 at 12:26
Talking of David Willetts, where is he? I've seen Damien Green on TV all the time defending his man, but Mr Willetts seems to have disappered off the face of the planet.
Remember the book "Where's Wally"?
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0744554446.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Perhaps we should start a Where's Willetts?
Posted by: Gareth | 02 November 2005 at 15:01
The reason some of those who originally supported Davis have gone to ground is quite simple. They supported him because they wanted to be on the winning side so as to advance there chances of getting one of top jobs.
Now its clear there going to lose they are trying to save there own reputations and making it look like they wern`t siumply chasing after fools gold!
Posted by: Jack Stone | 02 November 2005 at 15:50
Where wally is a very fine book,my little daughter used to love it.If Willetts is Wally who the hell is Oddlaw?
Posted by: malcolm | 02 November 2005 at 16:45
Jack, I really don't think they should worry that much. I don't think that New Labour is quaking at the thought of a Cameron-led Tory Party.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | 02 November 2005 at 19:37
They will be once it happens.I don`t have a shadow of doubt that David Cameron will lead the party to victory at the next election whenever it comes.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 02 November 2005 at 21:03
"I don`t have a shadow of doubt that David Cameron will lead the party to victory at the next election whenever it comes."
And on what basis do you offer this assertion Jack?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 02 November 2005 at 21:06
He just knows Daniel.Now be a good boy and don't argue,you know it never works with Jack
Posted by: malcolm | 02 November 2005 at 21:18
You can say that David Cameron will lead the party to victory at the next election and be believed by an awful lot of people now.
You can say that David Davis will lead the party to victory at the next election and most people will laugh at you!
The party doesn`t have much choice as I see it. Its a choice between firing the cannons of victory or shooting yourself in the foot!
Posted by: Jack Stone | 03 November 2005 at 10:28
You must be used to people laughing at you though, Jack.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 03 November 2005 at 10:31