William Hague interviews the two Davids

William Hague interviews David Davis and David Cameron for the News of the World.  Both interview pages are topped with a cryptic 'He's lacking in judgment' headline.  William Hague's conclusion:

"‘David Davis has the mountain of his life to climb. I've been on some long hill walks with him and he won't run out of energy. But with a month to go, he may run out of time.  Still, when we talked this week, and in his appearance on Question Time, I recognised the almost liberating feeling of an underdog so far behind in the polls he knows he has nothing to lose.  I felt the same in the 2001 general election. If anything can gain him ground it is that, though it clearly didn't work for me! I think his attitude to that Blackpool conference performance is refreshing, though I believe both he and his rival underestimate the pulverising pressure of a constant media spotlight.

Meanwhile, David Cameron is thinking hard about what happens after December 6 when the new leader is elected. But he'll have been reminded by his TV confrontation with David Davis that he still has to win the leadership.

He accuses Davis of making bad judgements over tax and some say he is wrong to make direct criticism of his rival. I disagree. Whether Cameron is correct or not in his assessment of Davis's tax position, his honesty in making his point now is commendable.  Cameron must now show he can maintain his campaign without getting into the same detail. If he can, the leadership is his for the taking.  Otherwise, both candidates have a lot in common. They both think they can win the next election. They both think Gordon Brown could be a weaker opponent than Blair.

And they both seem to want me to join their Shadow Cabinet...now that really is going to be a test of their skills of persuasion!'"

Comments

[Sally Rideout Baker]

Sunday AM

Cameron wins hands down. - Not one cough, not one stutter, not one “but you know”. He gives us the best chance of winning the next General Election. Period

[Jules]

Oh thats OK then - lets elect someone who doesn't cough. Why dont we just elect a trained model - in fact what about Martin Sheen - he plays a good President.

[James Burdett]

I do get worried when Davis keeps quoting Ho Chi Minh, not the best intellectual support for a Conservative.

[BNC Man]

Where did DD lose it between today and Thursday evening? In the QT debate he surprised everybody by failing to errr and ehm band to talk in reasonably coherent form. This morning he was dreadful.

While everybody is saying the DC campaign is based on one speech - is the DD re-emergence based on just one debate?

DD needs constant coaching which clearly he had before Thursday but not this morning.

[Jules]

Policies my dear boy, policies

[Editor]

Can we discuss the Hague interviews here and the AM performance on the latest post? You're all to fast for me!

[Ted]

DD wasn't dreadful - he was just exposed to harder questions than he got on QT because Marr does a better follow up than QT audience (who have prepared questions in mind). Cameron came over better because having fewer hard policies it was less confontational.
It'll be interesting how DD fares with Paxman's very hard follow up interragation - he won't be able to get away with "no pain because we aren't cutting expenditure", if cost inflation is higher than increases in funding there's a cut - some services will be affected, he needs to be ready to say what he'll reduce or accept that there will be increased public borrowing until growth kicks in. Ireland could cut taxes because Europe funded a deal of what otherwise would have been borrowing.

[henry curteis]

DC skims effortlessly along the surface refusing to be drawn. DD is prepared to get in the game and go a few rounds with BBC 'you're a tory aren't you' questioning. Inevitably he takes a few knocks while trying to get his points across.

DC appears to do better by avoiding a BBC brawl which he realises will provide him with much pain and no gain. His shiny image is too good to spoil after all, and interviewers are made to feel that they are being ever so slightly intrusive by asking him what his policies are.

DD says give me the pain. It'll bring us the gain.

I guess DC is right to dodge the bullets. The problem is how will anyone ever find out what his policies are.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

And they both seem to want me to join their Shadow Cabinet...now that really is going to be a test of their skills of persuasion!'"

Can we start a petition to have Hague in the Shadow Cabinet?

[James Maskell]

I second that. I can almost guarantee that people will join the Party if they know William Hague is in the front bench. Labour supporters amd voters agreed. Hes a fan favourite and knows front bench politics.

[John Coulson]

How dare DC appear disgruntled when interviewers and activists ask about him his policies. We want to know what he is about and he turns around and spits back at us in a childish manner that he won't until he has been safely elected.

If he wins I think that in 10 years we will have half the membership we do now.

[Henry Cook]

"And they both seem to want me to join their Shadow Cabinet...now that really is going to be a test of their skills of persuasion!"

I really hope that wasn't a serious comment - he should be prepared to serve in whatever capacity the new leader wishes him to. If Ken Clarke can be persuaded to be shadow Chancellor and Liam Fox foreign secretary, how about Hague for chairman? It would get him on TV a lot and he's a favourite with the activists. Having said that we want him at the despatch box. Scrap what I've said so far. Its very hard playing fantasy shadow cabinet, but I'll have a go:

Leader: DC
Shadow Chancellor: KC
Shadow Foreign: WH
Shadow Home: DD (a very good performer here, nowhere better for him to go)
Deputy Leader & Education: George Osborne (deputy as consolation for losing chancellorship)
Chairman: LF (not a demotion, a good crowd pleaser)
Health: Theresa May
Defence: Chris Grayling (reward for getting Blunkett)
Work & Pensions: Rifkind (shows we are serious on this issue even if Labour are not)
Chief Secretary: David Willetts (the brains behind Ken Clarke at the Treasury)
Environment: Caroline Spelman
Transport: Julie Kirkbride
Leader of the House: Letwin
Trade & Industry: Duncan
Culture: Boris Johnson (we have to have the most popular Tory among the public in the shadow Cabinet, or we would look rather silly)

I realise I've ignored some positions. I've tried to ensure there are enough women - I think that's quite important. What would anyone else like to see? I'd be very interested to see your fantasy shadow Cabinet Mr Hellyer.

[James Hellyer]

"I really hope that wasn't a serious comment - he should be prepared to serve in whatever capacity the new leader wishes him to."

I get the impression that he's more interested in raking money in through his media careers, than he is in serving hisn party.

[Selsdon Man]

Henry, that is a small shadow cabinet - no chief whip, leader in the Commons and Lords, local government etc. Do you want to sack Redwood, Lansley and Ancram?

[James Hellyer]

Maybe he's going for the slimmed down Howard model (where the entire party's media was was... Howard)!

[loyal_tory]

I think William Hague still has a lot to offer this party. I can't have been the only person watching Question Time who thought he would have performed more effectively than either of the two candidates. I believe he has learnt a great deal from the 2001 election defeat, and unlike some others who have made mistakes he has been prepared to admit to his. And I feel sure he will return to the front bench, provided that he is offered a post that reflects his experience and abilities.

He also combines the clear conservative direction so many of us like about David Davis with the communication skills that are clearly such an asset for David Cameron. I think he is wise to have stayed out of the front line for the last four years (and why should he not use his formidable talents to earn some money?) but I reckon he is more committed to the party's future success than many who have tilted unsuccessfully at the leadership in recent years. And unlike many Tories, he has not chosen to criticse his successors in public.

Any fair assessment of his mistakes 1997-01 would include not focusing sufficiently on the big issues that concerned the electorate, striking the wrong tone on less important issues (giving the Tories the appearance of being petty, intolerant and divisive), and failing to encourage a better range of candidates who were more reflective of their constituencies and the country. The way the party managed the media under his leadership often also did not help matters. But a William Hague who had learned from those mistakes could be a powerful force to be reckoned with in the party's future.

[Henry Cook]

"Henry, that is a small shadow cabinet - no chief whip, leader in the Commons and Lords, local government etc. Do you want to sack Redwood, Lansley and Ancram?"

Ancram is going to retire to the back benches, and I certainly would like to sack Redwood. I'm indifferent to Lansley, he has never impressed me. I know I've ignored some positions, I wouldn't mind who filled them, and I don't think the public would really care about our local government spokesman either! Would you disagree with any of the major posts, Selsdon Man?

[Barbara Villiers]

John,

You have got it in one and that is exactly what David Cameron plans to do - put the older, more traditional members out to pasture and rebuild the Party from scratch. Not only very risky, but pretty nasty too.

This is an open secret in Westminster and I'm only surprised that it hasn't leaked to the Party members yet.

[John Coulson]

Leader D Davis
Deputy K Clarke
S Chancellor W Hague
S For Sec M Rifkind
S Home L Fox
Chairman D C - (You all tell me how good at presentation he is)
Health C Spelman
Education D Willets
DTI A Duncan
Transport J Redwood
W + P IDS (deserves it)
Enviroment A Lansley
NIreland G Howarth
Culture J Kirkbride
Chief Sec G Osborne
Defence B Jenkin
L of House N Soames
Local Gov't D Curry
Const Affairs D Grieve

This would be an excellent front bench. If we are serious about the next election T May cannot be anywhere near the front bench.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

You have got it in one and that is exactly what David Cameron plans to do - put the older, more traditional members out to pasture and rebuild the Party from scratch. Not only very risky, but pretty nasty too.

I'm sure Cameron recognises the need for a broad church in any shadow cabinet under his command, and your comments strike me as mere scurrilous speculation.

I'm sure we'd all like to see Hague, Clarke, the defeated leadership contender et al in senior positions.

[Selsdon Man]

I will consider your invitation to supply a list, Henry. KC's comments this weekend suggest that he wants Party Chairman. Hague, I believe, has another book deal.

I would like to see Liam Fox back at CCHQ to modernise the Party's campaigning methods, e.g. continue the development of voter vault and bring in other new campaigning systems from the US.

Unlikely DC would put experienced talent out to pasture - he wants to win an election. After he wins that election (please) though I'd expect that like Thatcher & Blair we'd see displacement of the wider church by the true followers
But we do need to get a younger more representative membership - I've always wondered whether Tebbit's destruction of the YCs lost us a generation. They may have been exuberant liberterians but the party in the 70's & 80's seemed more alive than the 90's version.

[James Maskell]

The current version of CF isnt suitable for a modern Party. It needs a serious review. I sent a list of ideas to the candidates for CF Chairman when the election was on. Im certain the one who won the election received the email from me. Sadly Ive heard nothing since...

[Selsdon Man]

I am afraid that Norman made a big mistake in closing down FCS. It led to the decline of the YCs.

As an "exhuberant libertarian" (as you call it) in the 80s and 90s, I was pushing a "modernising" agenda long before the Notting Hill set.

[Barbara Villiers]

I am not talking about the Shadow Cabinet - I am talking about the Party membership.

It's been making the rounds of Westminster for quite some time.