The Sunday Telegraph believes that David Cameron has "established beyond reasonable doubt his credentials as the Conservative Party's best hope at the next election". Its endorsement of the Shadow Education Secretary ends with a call for George Osborne, Liam Fox and David Davis to be key members of a Cameron leadership:
"In the intellectual and persuasive battle ahead, there are three colleagues whom he must keep close to him. One is George Osborne, who has proved himself a bold and innovative Shadow Chancellor, and should remain in that post. Liam Fox - whose performance in the contest made the Prime Minister sit up and think - deserves a senior berth in the new team.
Above all, Mr Davis should be offered - and has said he would accept - the Deputy Leadership of the party, an anchor and a reassurance to those in the party who may find Mr Cameron's plans occasionally alarming but also as a politician of experience, grit and judgment. This exciting contest has shown that the opportunity for the Conservatives to change the political landscape is the most promising it has been since 1979. Now it is time to deliver."
Pick your own Shadow Cabinet by clicking here.
Didn't make front page though ! The tabloid content of The Sunday Telegraph will make the broadsheet format embarrassing - no doubt the new all-colour presses will give Sarah Sands the full tableau of The Sunday Express to emulate. The current state of The Telegraph stable is somewhat threadbare and pathetic, a much diminished periodical.
Posted by: Rick | 27 November 2005 at 08:42
Yet another anti-media rant from a Davis supporter. How pathetic. Are there any newspapers they do like now that all are supporting David Cameron.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 27 November 2005 at 10:31
Acually Jack Stone I did not refer to Davis or Cameron. You are an obsessive. My concern was that The Sunday Telegraph has deteriorated and is far inferior to the Barclay Bros other newspaper, The Business.
You really must spring over your own shadow and think of matters other than leadership contests. When what was a major Conservative newspaper deteriorates to the point of becoming absurd, it is noteworthy.
I suggest you count up your pennies and spend £1-40 on a copy today, look at each page and see just how much text there is amidst the huge half-page adverts, and decide if you think this is how you like newspapers - if yes you should subscribe - it is getting to the point where Sunday newspapers are becoming a waste of money.
Posted by: Rick | 27 November 2005 at 10:55
Rick, it did sound like you were poisoning the well... After all, this forum is about a leadership race, not newspaper quality.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 27 November 2005 at 10:58
The Mail on Sunday has not declared for either candidate. That makes it unique amongst the right-of-centre press.
Posted by: Editor | 27 November 2005 at 11:07
Well I have it on rather good authority that the plan is to offer Davis such a humilitating post that he will have no choice except to decline.
Ed Vaizey for Shadow Home Secretary anyone?
Posted by: Barbara Villiers | 27 November 2005 at 11:25
I think it was ill-advised for periodicals and newspapers to take sides in the leadership contest. The Spectator took the side of Cmaeron from the beginning for example, and Fox was given nil exposure.
This to my mind will have alienated a lot of readers, apart from making the above duller. Also why should news-writers and commentators assume support for anyone? Their job is purely to report and comment, not assume the decision-taking role.
Well done, the Mail on Sunday. I hope the others all suffer a drop in circulation to your gain. You deserve it for staying out of it. It's often individuals on the papers who are trying to gain advantage by declaring support anyway.
Posted by: malcolm thomas | 27 November 2005 at 12:13
Barbara - We agree on most things but I am prepared to put good money on Davis remaining in a job as big (if not the same) as his present job. It would be folish for Cameron not to do that (OK, Cameron is a fool). However, on another matter: If Cameron persists in keeping that boy Osborne as Shadow Chancellor then it just shows what a pathetic man he really is. Vaizey and Gove deserved to be deselected, not to mention Theresa Villiers.
We are currently members of a party that has these disgraceful individuals among its numbers.I hope we see mass walk outs from the Parliamentary party on the 6th should the petulant boy win.
Posted by: John Coulson | 27 November 2005 at 12:23
Seeing John Coulson leave the party is the best reason I know for voting for David Cameron.
Posted by: CCHQ Spy | 27 November 2005 at 12:26
"Ed Vaizey for Shadow Home Secretary anyone?"
I doubt it. We're all aware of David Cameron's inexperience, and all the papers which have endorsed him have stresssed the need for him to pack his Shadow Cabinet with big hitters to compensate for that.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 November 2005 at 12:31
The Mail has leaned towards Cameron, I feel. It did criticise Cameron over his refusal to answer the "did he or didnt he?" question but it has praised him for making the stand and for what he offers the party.
Posted by: James Maskell | 27 November 2005 at 12:40
Perhaps Barbara and John Coulson will form a Party all to themselves and we can vote for them. Heaven forbid!
Posted by: robbo | 27 November 2005 at 12:42
"The Mail has leaned towards Cameron, I feel. It did criticise Cameron over his refusal to answer the "did he or didnt he?" question but it has praised him for making the stand and for what he offers the party."
I suspect that they aren't too keen on Cameron, but are even less keen on backing the losing candidate again.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 27 November 2005 at 12:49
John,
I only hope you are right and I am wrong but they are a bitchy little lot.
Posted by: Barbara Villiers | 27 November 2005 at 13:47
No one likes to back a loser, so you're probably right there. They were pretty tough with Cameron but they havent been singing many praises of David Davis.
Posted by: James Maskell | 27 November 2005 at 16:35
John Coulson of these pages? I wonder?
http://www.hambleton.gov.uk/hambleton/Members.nsf/8e409d61e055cd92802565e7003a1b89/491857d71137d93f80256a39002c2746?OpenDocument
Posted by: Mysterious | 27 November 2005 at 19:58
John C will soon reply to your post no doubt as he usually manages to get round my attempts to ban him but I have banned his latest IP address for offensive posting. Let's just say that John Coulson is not the only name he uses on this site.
Posted by: Editor | 27 November 2005 at 20:11
"Let's just say that John Coulson is not the only name he uses on this site."
I think some people had guessed the obvious already. Perhaps you might consider logins in the future.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | 27 November 2005 at 21:42
John C assures me that he is not responsible for the other post and I've chosen to believe him.
Chris: Security will be enhanced on this site soon..
Posted by: Editor | 27 November 2005 at 21:49
Thank goodness for that!
Chris, I would prefer if you stopped trouble making. I know you are a Cameroon but that doesn't mean it is obligatory for you to whip up trouble, double-cross, back-stab and ridicule (although it is apparent it helps you get on in their clique).
Posted by: John Coulson | 27 November 2005 at 21:59
"Ed Vaizey for Shadow Home Secretary anyone?"
Vaizey had a diary piece in the Evening Standard's magazine a week or two ago in which he said that he shouldn't get a job because he was too new into Parliament and because it would smack too much of jobs for the boys. He's right on both counts - and it's reassuring to see that sort of signal coming out from the Cameron camp.
Posted by: Simon C | 27 November 2005 at 22:35
Vaizey will probably get a junior shadow ministerial post at first and worm his way upwards from there over the next few years.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 27 November 2005 at 22:46
Barbara, from you of all people, this made me laugh: "they are a bitchy little lot".
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 27 November 2005 at 23:43
Good to hear that security is being upgraded. There's a suspicion that some people have been logging messages under false names.
Posted by: Tarquin de Vere Montmorency Twistleton-Wickham-Fiennes | 28 November 2005 at 00:37
Oh yes Mark, when a man is strongly opinionated he is a forthright fellow but when a woman is, she is a bitch.
Posted by: Barbara Villiers | 28 November 2005 at 07:00