toryleadership

The week that David Davis didn't relaunch

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK

Last week David Cameron (unchanged this week) emerged as the favourite to become the next Tory leader and nothing has changed since then.  Three opinion polls (1, 2 and 3) all confirmed that Mr Cameron had transformed the landscape of the contest because of his campaign launch and Blackpool speech.  At Wednesday's '92 hustings he put in a solid performance and reassured some Eurosceptic MPs with a commitment to leave the EPP.  His week has, of course, been dogged by very intrusive questions about whether or not he used illegal drugs when at university.  David Davis - like most observers - has said that past use doesn't matter unless it was "recent".  Much more important - in my opinion - is David Cameron's support for a harm reduction approach to drugs.  On its own it's not enough to kill his campaign; but it could really hurt it.

David Davis (-1) steadied his parliamentary ship at the '92 meeting but despite talk of a relaunch he has yet to shows any sign of urgency or campaign intensity.  One insider told me that his campaign HQ is a "disorganised and rudderless operation".  The uninspirational safety-first campaign of the long pre-Blackpool period should have been publicly dumped and replaced with a passionate 'fighting for Britain's battlers campaign'.   I wonder if the Davis campaign is caught in the headlights of the Cameron Phenomenon?  They're still complaining about the way the press over-egged DC's Blackpool speech and tore their candidate's speech apart.  Their sense of unfairness will only have been encouraged by Peter Oborne's latest Spectator column.  Mr Oborne (a Clarke supporter) suggests ITN-led media manipulation of events in Blackpool.  He writes:

"David Cameron, the new favourite to become Tory leader, is to all intents and purposes a fiction. He is the author of a brilliant speech which never really happened, a man of dazzling talents that he does not possess. The real Cameron, of course, staggers on under the burden of artifice and interpretation. How well he lives with this weird new identity will determine the result next week and, who knows, maybe the election in four years’ time."

Peter Oborne's candidate of choice - Ken Clarke (-1) - won the backing of Sir Malcolm Rifkind but fell further behind David Cameron (in the list of parliamentary endorsements).  This happened despite a "charming" performance in front of the '92.  His Machiavellian references to not ever having used cocaine - "If it is of any interest, I haven't taken cocaine" - were clearly designed to dislodge Cameron supporters from the Shadow Education Secretary's camp.  They're unlikely to save his campaign, however, and I expect he'll be defeated next week - on either Tuesday or Thursday - and he'll encourage his backers to join the Cameron bandwagon.

Mr Clarke is in a tough fight to beat Liam Fox (+1) in Tuesday's first round of voting.  Dr Fox picked up six new supporters during a week spent quietly courting undecided MPs.   Dr Fox's campaign is regularly caricatured as right-wing.  That probably reflects his neocon positions on Iraq, abortion, the EPP and the family.  But there is more to his candidacy than that.  His 'extra mile compassion' policies on human rights, mental illness and domestic violence should rebut the media's easy caricatures.  Overtaking Ken Clarke ahead of Tuesday's first round vote must now be his top tactical priority.  Dr Fox is unlikely to stop the race becoming a 'Davis vs Cameron' final round but he could emerge as the kingmaker if he performs well.   

PS Apologies that this post is 36 hours late!

'Favourite Cameron' must now face the scrutiny

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK

Ken Clarke had as good a September as David Cameron had a bad September.  Ken Clarke electrified the contest and seemed set to be the likeliest opponent to David Davis.  All those pre-summer stories that framed the contest as DC vs DD began to look highly suspect.  DC struggled to win any attention and some commentators – including this blog – wondered if the Boy Wonder needed to call it a day.  Things started to change on Saturday 24th when DC finally embraced the always obvious theme for his campaign - modernisation.  His slick launch of last Thursday then overshadowed that of David Davis.  His launch messages were a powerful statement of this blog’s And Theory Of Conservatism (a fact which was kindly and publicly acknowledged by Michael Gove at a fringe meeting on Tuesday).  For those reasons I awarded last week’s top prize to DC.  But if DC did well last week, he excelled this week.  He found the ‘something very special’ that was needed to supercharge his leadership bid.

David Cameron (+7) gets my highest weekly award of the whole contest (for a candidate).  His speech of Tuesday had the perfect pitch and heartfelt compassion that enthused me on 22nd July.  He thrilled his audience.  The Tory rank-and-file started to love him as much as Ben Rogers and the floating voters assembled by The Guardian and Newsnight.  By yesterday, when his face appeared on the conference’s big screen a huge cheer went up.  Suddenly Mr Cameron is the bookies’ favourite.

Of all five declared candidates David Cameron has, perhaps, the greatest potential.  He could be the candidate to decisively break from the Conservative Party of Black Wednesday, sleaze and the decade of flatlining around 30%.  But DC is also the most untried of the candidates.  Tuesday’s speech was very light on detail.  Before I am prepared to vote for him I want to know much more about his beliefs.  I can’t say that I’m very reassured by his last four years in parliament:

• He supported libertarian drug policies when on the Home Affairs Select Committee.
• As aide to Michael Howard he was at the forefront of the lawyerly and inappropriate responses to Hutton and Butler.
• As Head of Policy he must take some responsibility for the thin manifesto that Michael Howard offered the British people at this year’s General Election.

Where does Mr Cameron stand on reversing ever closer union?  Does he support human cloning?  Is he prepared to support military intervention to match his powerful rhetoric about the suffering in Darfur?  These are the sorts of questions that Mr Cameron must face and answer.  If he gives good answers he probably deserves to be our next leader.  But he has to earn the leadership for himself.  He shouldn’t become leader simply because David Davis has failed.

But David Davis (-5) did fail this week.  Yesterday, Sir Malcolm Rifkind broke the rule about not criticising other candidates, when he told Radio 4 that he didn't see how a man who couldn't inspire his own party, could hope to inspire the country.  Time and again I’ve complained about his campaign’s failure to inspire.  That failure was disguised by September’s rolling thunder of declarations of parliamentary supporters.  There is now talk that DD has over-declared and some supporters may defect to Cameron or, particularly, Fox.  As argued yesterday, DD must overhaul his campaign team.  The Blackpool Conference felt like an American election but currently DD lacks the American-style machine to deliver victory in this campaign.  Passion and a little razzmatazz needs to come from someone, somewhere.  Action must also be taken to stop the little things like the annoying laugh during radio interviews and the big things like the bullying of new MPs. 

If the main winner was DC, and the main loser was DD, the runner-up winner was LF and the runner-up loser was KC…

Liam Fox (+3) gave a good speech and secured four more endorsements.  At a human rights fringe meeting on Tuesday (postscripted under this post) I witnessed a hugely inspirational Liam Fox.  I only wish many more had seen him.  Dr Fox has emerged as the most principled contender in this race.  The other candidates may have judged – perhaps rightly – that strong views on abortion, the EPP, Iraq and human rights are unhelpful when it comes to wooing the wider electorate.  But the next party leader won’t prosper if the wisdom of principled counsellors is always drowned out by the tactical advice of pragmatic counsellors.  Voters want authenticity as well as calculated moderation.  Dr Fox is now a serious force in the Conservative Party.  What is left of the Cornerstone Group of Tory MPs – a minority of which have now declared – should end the self-indulgent idea of fielding their own candidate and support Dr Fox.

Ken Clarke (-2) didn’t put a foot wrong this week.  He gave a warmly-received speech and, like Cameron, he (and the inestimable Richard Chalk) had assembled a small voluntary army of enthusiastic leafletters.  But KC was almost as burnt by the heat of Cameron’s rise as David Davis.  He received no prominent new backers and he failed to produce real enthusiasm from the conference representatives.  Mr Clarke may yet bounce back – and Cameron may yet falter – but he appears to lack the votes to secure the second placed position amongst MPs.  Dr Fox (if he can secure the support of the Cornerstone Group) now looks a more credible threat to David Cameron getting that second spot.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind (-3) gave a very good speech on Monday but he has gathered no momentum.  He says that he will soon be announcing new parliamentary backers and insists that he will compete in the first round of the parliamentary contest.  I’m not convinced.

***

I work with Iain Duncan Smith at the Centre for Social Justice so my conclusion to this week's 'Good Week, Bad Week' comes with a 'bias warning' but I judge that Iain had an exceptional week, too.   When David Cameron praised the party's last three leaders during his speech on Tuesday, he praised William Hague for helping to save the pound; he applauded Michael Howard's success in organising an ill-disciplined party; and IDS was saluted for putting a passion for social justice back at the heart of the Conservative Party.  Mr Cameron, who has been the leadership candidate who has given most support to Iain's CSJ, wasn't the only one to notice.  All of the candidates - to differing extents - are adopting Iain's idea that Conservatives must put concern for vulnerable people at the centre of our mission as a party.  Peter Oborne, in discussing the weakness at the heart of the modernisation project, also thought that Iain had a great deal to still offer the party: 

"[Modernisers] talk the language of change, but not much more. Tory MPs at Blackpool attacked their party for this; it ought to be the other way around. In the end it is the Tory activists who hold the clue to the party’s future, not the MPs with their directorships, safe seats in the Home Counties and agreeable pension arrangements. Only one politician in the Conservative party really understands this point, and he set out his vision very well on Monday afternoon in a fascinating speech. The task ahead, observed Iain Duncan Smith, ‘is not about changing the party to fit its public face, it’s about fitting the public face to what we really are’. The Tory party should glory in what it is, not try to deny it."

A good week for democracy (and cold water for the hot favourite)

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK

The big winner this week has been party democracy (+10).  More than 40% of grassroots members rejected the party establishment’s attempts to rollback democracy.  I condemned those attempts on Tuesday morning and hinted at the political and financial damage that they had caused.  In any half-decent business the architects of such a damaging exercise would have had the decency to resign – or they would have been sacked.  Following its manifest failure to represent voluntary party opinion the next leader must reform the Conservative Party Board.  A large proportion of party members will always support the leadership out of loyalty and the fact that such a decisive number rebelled (undeterred by unfounded threats) has demonstrated the Board’s illegitimacy.

In our ‘democratic victory’ special tribute must be paid to:

1. Iain Duncan Smith and John Hayes who got the campaign rolling in its earliest stages;
2. Theresa May who didn’t just oppose the disenfranchisement but made an intelligent and passionate case for an extended franchise through open primaries (an idea that received the surprising interest of Francis Maude last week);
3. The twenty MPs who signed two attention-grabbing pro-democracy letters to The Telegraph;
4. Barry Legg, Christopher Montgomery and the whole Better Choice campaign;
5. Robin Hodgson and the other previous heads of the voluntary party who opposed Howard-Maude-Monbiot.

This blog salutes you all!

And what of the leadership candidates’ week?

David Davis (-1) didn’t really have a good week but through no fault of his own.  He had attracted so many MPs to his colours – not least last week (including rising star Greg Clark and the respected David Lidington) - that his surest route to the leadership was an MPs-only election.  Although a late supporter of party democracy DD could be forgiven for being a little disappointed at the failure of Michael Howard’s reforms.  A slam dunk (you can tell I’m writing this in the USA) elevation to the Tory throne if MPs had had the decisive say now looks much less certain.  David Davis is best on TV (today’s most important medium by a long chalk) but he is not an accomplished public speaker.  DD’s aides fear he may perform poorly in comparison with, for example, the charismatic Dr Fox and Ken Clarke during grassroots hustings.

Brushing off an unnecessarily personalised attack from John Bercow, David Cameron (+3) enjoyed a better week.  Three new endorsements put him narrowly back in second place.  More importantly; after weeks of campaign malaise he has finally found a theme for his leadership bid and it’s the one we all expected him to use from the very beginning – change.  The young, handsome Mr Cameron is finally presenting himself as the change candidate – and in a powerful statement of this site’s And Theory Of Conservatism – he’s blending bold core positions (on, for example, tax relief) with an adventurous form of compassionate conservatism.  Over last weekend he also showed a willingness to face up to threat posed by the LibDems.

Liam Fox (+1) is struggling to win the explicit backing of Conservative MPs for his ambition to be Tory leader but his pledge to take Tory MEPs out of the European Peoples’ Party has won the support of five new Tory MPs.  The five are Douglas Carswell, Robert Goodwill, Philip Hollobone, Theresa Villiers (herself a former MEP) and Robert Wilson.  Although this support will be welcomed by Team Fox it desperately needs real leadership race endorsements.  Dr Fox is doing better amongst the newspapers, however.  The Sun is already shining on him and on the day that Max Hastings identified The Telegraph as crucial to the race, a Telegraph leading article (perhaps written by Daniel Hannan MEP) welcomed his EPP policy.  Whatever happens to his leadership bid – and rumours of a Blackpool endorsement from William Hague next week could yet make it fly – Dr Fox has established himself as a standard-bearer for the Tory Party’s national security hawks, Eurosceptics and social conservatives.  This week’s speech on mental health problems has also underlined the Good Doctor’s ‘extra mile compassion credentials’.

Ken Clarke (+2) moved briefly into second place amongst MPs and he fancies his chances against David Davis amongst the increasingly hungry-for-office rank-and-file.  Although he has made substantial speeches the message of his new look website focuses on his popularity.  Up until now that reputation has been based on static polling – the weaknesses of which were exposed by Mark Steyn in The Telegraph (and this site’s most prolific commentator, James Hellyer).  YouGov’s analysis for The Spectator shows that KC’s ‘polling advantage’ does not appear to survive a dynamic appraisal of the other candidates’ potential appeal.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind (-1) doesn’t yet have a website and that failure can only fuel the rumours of an imminent endorsement of Ken Clarke.  He may be waiting until he gives the best speech of Blackpool’s party conference (as predicted by Bruce Anderson)?  If insufficient MPs have declared their faith in Sir Malcolm the enthusiasm of Crispin Blunt, his campaign manager, is undimmed.  He still thinks his hero is the man David Davis fears and wrote to this blog telling us why.

More progress for David Davis

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK

On Thursday 29th the two remaining Davids - Cameron and Davis - both formally launch their campaigns.  Two days before then we will have had the result of the long-awaited decision of the Constitutional Convention on the leadership process.  If Michael Howard fails to win two-thirds of the Convention the next leader of the Conservative Party will be elected democratically by all of the party’s members.  If he succeeds: (1) the Tory Party will have taken a huge backwards step into the narrow politics of the Westminster village, and (2) the likelihood of David Davis becoming the next Tory leader will have risen markedly.

The 'not-ugly' David Davis (+2) has certainly had another good week and that’s not just because of the backing of X-factor celebrity Simon Cowell.  With yesterday’s endorsement from Keith Simpson MP the Shadow Home Secretary now has the publicly declared backing of 51 Tory MPs.  No other candidate comes close to that level of support.  My guess is that David Davis has many other undeclared backers but many will stay unknown under orders from the Davis camp.  Mr Davis cannot afford to receive less votes in the first round of the parliamentary election than his number of public backers.  Observers will interpret any failure to receive fewer votes than that publicly-declared tally as a sign of a campaign in retreat.  David Davis gave a neocon/ hawkish speech on terror yesterday that put him firmly in the Blair-Bush camp on Iraq.  Good for him.

But when it comes to neoconservatism Liam Fox (+2) is yielding to noone.  Pro-life commitments on abortion and an assertive policy towards China show that Dr Fox is probably the race’s bravest candidate.  Bravery might not win him the contest but there’s a compelling authenticity about Dr Fox.  The Cornerstone group of socially conservative MPs are continuing to suggest that no candidate has endorsed their agenda but if ideological clarity is their main concern they should stop fooling around with the idea of an Edward Leigh/ Michael Ancram candidacy and endorse Dr Fox.  If Dr Fox wins Cornerstone’s support he must have a good chance of becoming the main challenger to David Davis.  David Cameron and Ken Clarke are not attracting new parliamentary supporters and could easily be leap-frogged by a Fox backed by Cornerstone and William Hague.  The ‘Hague backs Fox’ rumour resurfaced in the Fox-friendly Sun.  The former Tory leader has not denied the story.  Dr Fox currently has 11 public backers (including himself).  Rugby’s new Tory MP – Jeremy Wright – declared for him yesterday. (I'm now told Jeremy Wright hasn't declared for Dr Fox (6pm, Saturday) and the newspaper report was false...).

David Cameron (-2) disappeared off the radar again this week.  Next Thursday’s campaign launch has to be very special or Mr Cameron – once seen as Mr Davis’ main rival – would be well advised to quit.

Malcolm Rifkind (no change) keeps trying hard.  He gave a comprehensive speech to the CPS and an interview for The Times and both speeches radiated self-confidence.  His CPS speech suggests that he understands the importance of the Tory Party moving beyond narrow ‘core vote’ positions but he is very uncharitable to his “Right-wing” competitors (who he should remember are also parliamentary colleagues) and his own vision of “One Nation in One World” (the contest’s best slogan) is either sketchy (on issues like the family) or Srebrenica-like (eg Iraq).

For the second week running Ken Clarke (-1) has been unable to build on the impressive momentum he developed in the first two electric weeks of his campaign.  His speech on public services to the CSJ on Wednesday showed considerable caution.  He gave a very weak answer to one person’s question on how a Clarke-led Tory Party would help marriage.  All of his answers were very long.  This leadership election is certainly a real choice.  On Europe, family, Iraq, tax and public services Mr Clarke represents a very different future for Conservatism – or this that a very different past?  And one more thing… What I am about to write may seem unkind but I was also impressed by Mr Clarke’s physical size.  I don’t see him much in parliament and so Wednesday night offered a rare opportunity to see the ‘Big Beast’.  And he really is a Big Beast in the, er, flesh.  Americans are obsessed with the health of their presidential candidates.  I wonder if Mr Clarke is healthy enough to lead the Conservative Party for four years and then potentially be PM for three or four years.  I don’t think his age should count against him but is he healthy enough?  I think we should be told.

The week it didn't happen for Ken Clarke

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK

“The last week started well for Ken Clarke and got better and better.  On Saturday a YouGov poll showed him level-pegging with David Davis amongst members.  Then, in Sunday’s newspapers, four of the new parliamentary intake announced that they were backing the former Chancellor.  He jumped into second place in the list of public parliamentary backers.  Suddenly a Ken Clarke leadership looked possible; even likely.  Two days later all his efforts to woo David Willetts bore fruit.  The most sought-after endorsement in the leadership race landed in Ken’s lap.  A rattled David Davis appeared on TV saying that Ken Clarke’s Europhilia made him an "absolutely unacceptable" Tory leader for the Tory party.  The tactic backfired and the next day’s newspapers included reports that some of Davis’ moderate backers were considering jumping ship…”

Only sentence two in that paragraph is true but I’ve tried to describe the scenario that Ken Clarke’s campaign team needed to engineer.  It had certainly been what they had hoped for.  Yesterday’s Evening Standard reported: "We are 90 per cent confident [David Willetts] will come to us. A lot of work has been done in that direction. We really need a big-name new supporter from the Right and, although a moderniser, David is a Right-winger by instinct and intellect".  For two weeks Team Clarke have run a superb campaign but it has yielded very little…

No endorsements from any new MPs…
No David Willetts endorsement…
No panic from the Davis camp…

David Davis (+5) looks stronger today than at any time since this leadership election began.  I award him the top prize for this week and a zero to Ken Clarke.  The main reason for David Davis’ strength, however, is because none of the other candidates are making significant progress:

• Dr Fox (+1) is presenting many good ideas but is not demonstrating that he’d be substantially different from David Davis.  He attacked Ken Clarke last weekend but it is Mr Davis' campaign he really needs to wound if he is to make progress.  Cornerstone Edward Leigh MP's suggestion that he may run is not helpful to Dr Fox (or, for that matter, to Cornerstone's own influence on the race).
• David Cameron’s campaign (no change) still lacks a compelling theme and a leader in today’s Times suggests that he proves himself in the next fortnight or does a ‘Willetts’.
• Malcolm Rifkind gave an excellent speech on one nation last night but his campaign (-2) is going all around the country but nowhere in particular and may, it is reported, have attracted an ancient Scottish curse!
• And Ken Clarke could split the Conservative Party from top-to-bottom.  On tax, Europe, the family and Iraq he is not in step with mainstream conservatism.  As Bruce Anderson writes in this week’s Spectator:

“Throughout his long career in the Tory party he has never given the impression of holding his fellow Tories in a high regard. He was one of a small group of Heathites who believed that they could capture their party in a euro-coup and use it as a vehicle to lead Britain into a European federation. For 40 years he has been on the wrong side of the biggest question in British politics. That may qualify him for political leadership, but not in the Tory party. A former jewel thief should not expect to become the head of security for De Beers.  The second great issue facing the next Tory government will be the public services. How can we ensure that they actually serve the public, and that every pound spent by the government on the taxpayers’ behalf delivers the same value for money as the taxpayer secures for himself at his local supermarket? Again, there is no easy answer. But Ken Clarke served in government for many years without even trying. Recently, he has been telling us that he abhors ideology. He really means that he has no interest in ideas.”

None of this means that David Davis clearly deserves the leadership.  Wednesday's IPPR speech was solid but he’s yet to inspire.  Many observers – me included – find DW’s blessing (explained in today's Times) very reassuring.  We worry about the people around DD and the thought that DW will be sat at the top table is heartening.  But DD still hasn’t answered Alastair Campbell’s fair criticism that no Tory leadership contender has yet built “a coherent long-term strategy to change party and country”.  Perhaps DW can help DD find it?  Perhaps one of the other candidates can produce it?

Something special is going to be needed to stop David Davis now.  A grand alliance between Cameron and Fox?   Between Clarke and Cameron?

Team Ken will hope, of course, to get to the final two and beat Davis.  This, unexpectedly, looks much more possible if grassroots members choose between the final two.  My guess, however, is that although KC will be more competitive than in 2001 the race won’t end up as close as 48%-45%.  William Hague, still very popular amongst the grassroots, and other heavyweights of recent years, will swallow their doubts about Mr Davis and stop the party falling into the hands of a candidate who is doveish on terror and wrong on Europe.  This week has been a significant week. 

Join ConservativeHome's mailing list

Enter your name and email address below:

Name:
Email:
Subscribe Unsubscribe

More momentum for Ken

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK

Liam Fox (+2) has had a better week and should be delighted at getting generous treatment from this morning's Sun.  Of all the candidates he comes closest to conservativehome's And Theory Of Conservatism.  Dr Fox is combining Euroscepticism with a commitment to a genuinely global Conservative foreign policy (emphasising human rights and the environment, for example).  He is tough on crime but also aware of the role that strong families play in helping vulnerable young people to exit from the conveyor belt to crime.  It's a thoughtful balance of faithfulness to core Tory beliefs with an awareness of the need to broaden the party's appeal.  Commentators on this blog have been right, however, to point out that Dr Fox hasn't provided much detail on any policy front.  The human rights group, for example, hasn't been heard from since it was launched.   Also worrying is that he could only announce two new parliamentary endorsements for his big launch day.  He promises more announcements and they need to emerge reasonably soon if he is going to have a hope of being in the final two of this contest.

David Cameron (-2) has had another disappointing week.  There have been concerns about his attitude to drugs and there have been no new endorsements from parliamentarians.  A letter to the FT from senior businessleaders was good news but the endorsement letter from unsuccessful candidates to Wednesday's Telegraph verged on the platitudinous.  "We need a leader who will set out a Conservative vision for Britain and build wide support for that vision, " the letter stated, "David Cameron is young, intelligent and charismatic. He is a modern, compassionate Conservative who understands the challenges of our age and is on the way up, rather than on the way down."  Such mush wouldn't matter if his campaign had a strong theme but it doesn't.   Mr Cameron needs more of the boldness that characterised his Iraq intervention and of the kind displayed by his friend and supporter, George 'flat tax' Osborne.

Although courted by other leadership contenders David Willetts (-3) has had another invisible week.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind (-1) has embarked on a nationwide tour but has done nothing to break into the front rank of leadership contenders.

Ken Clarke (+5) is my 'winner of the week' again.  Surveys have found that he is very popular with the public and enjoys a, perhaps, surprising level of support amongst Tory Association Chairmen.  I understand that there is a divide in the Clarke campaign between those who think that their candidate will do best amongst MPs or best amongst the rank-and-file in the constituencies.  I fear that Clarke may do very well amongst the rank-and-file.  Tory activists don’t like many of Ken Clarke's views but they want his popularity.  Even The Telegraph is warming to Mr Clarke.  The Telegraph's largely left-wing journalistic staff chose a flattering 'Women love him, so do the young - and he scares the pants off Labour' headline for the newspaper's Wednesday interview with the former Chancellor.  After three massive defeats the members of the 'natural party of government' want power again.  They rejected Ken Clarke by about 60%-40% in ’01.  The combination of Europe being less of an issue, Iraq becoming an issue (the war is unpopular with many Tories who see it as 'Blair’s war') and that hunger for power could make a grassroots election very competitive.

I hope David Davis (+1) understands this.  At the moment his campaign is pretty lifeless and yesterday's World at One programme wondered if he had got caught in the slow lane.  His tiptoe steps towards party democracy on Monday and yesterday's critique of Gordon Brown were welcome but he has still not yet done anything to capture the public imagination.  He was right to say (on yesterday's World at One) that this contest is a marathon and not a sprint.  Perhaps he is saving all his inspirational ideas for the real battles of the autumn months?  But we need to see something a little more dramatic and a little more persuasive very soon.

David Aaronovitch, writing for The Times, provided this week's best indictment of Ken Clarke.  Mr Aaronovitch is one of the few left-leaning columnists who understands the importance of fighting the war in Iraq.  He noted that "Clarke is an attractive man, a latterday comfy-bummed Stanley Baldwin; his motto — like Baldwin’s — being “safety first” in a world in which there is no safety."  That line is so worth repeating: “Safety first” in a world in which there is no safety."  'Safety-first' is the wrong foreign policy for Britain.  'Safety-first' may also be the wrong leadership election strategy for David Davis.   Caution may not protect his frontrunner status if Clarke (and maybe others) continue to make such a dramatic impact. 

Ken Clarke is August's winner but is he a serious contender for the Tory crown?

My ‘good week, bad week’ feature was suspended for the month of August but will be back next Friday and until the leadership race concludes (which, as I blogged yesterday, might be some time yet…).  But, for those Tory MPs, journalists and others, just back from their French holiday homes or Skegness B&Bs, here is my ‘good August, bad August’ review of the last month.  I’ll take candidates in alphabetical order…

In the long tradition of unfortunate Tory holidays (eg David Davis in Florida when IDS wanted him ‘reshuffled’ and Shadow NI Secretary Andrew MacKay topping up his orange on some foreign beach during a Good Friday Agreement crisis) David Cameron (-1) has chosen a funny time to take a fortnight’s break.  He had to break from his break yesterday in order to give a speech on ‘quality of life issues’ and counter Ken Clarke’s ‘fireworks launch week’.  Perhaps Mr Cameron delayed his holiday until now in order to use August to talk about exam results?  Well… er, no.  His failure to challenge ‘A level’ grade inflation – his portfolio responsibility – has been noted by commentators to this blog.  He was busy throughout August but on subjects outside of his area of direct responsibility.  With everyone else on holiday, however, few noticed this activity – including his excellent speech on Iraq.  Mr Cameron had been seen as lead challenger to David Davis since his ‘marriage speech’ but, suddenly, ’tomorrow’s face of the Conservative Party’ can’t be seen for cigar smoke…

Ken Clarke (+5) has had the best month by simply having the best last few days.  He holidayed early in the month (birdwatching) and, The Sun’s Whip diary suggested, came back with a damaged nose in order, we can only suspect, to compete with the street credibility of ‘David-nose-broken-four-times-Davis’.  Once back in Britain Mr Clarke and his highly professional campaign team have hit the ground running.  He tried to neutralise his weakest flank (the euro issue) by ruling out membership of the single currency for a decade.  After watching Giles and Hoggard hit the winning runs at Trent Bridge he gave an interview to the Daily Mail which was covered across the whole broadcast media.  Yesterday’s Telegraph article rightly highlighted his golden economic record.  He even set up the contest’s first candidate website – first but pretty ugly and no interactivity.  Less promising (despite BBC Gary O’Donahue’s suggestion that it was “a shrewd move”) was yesterday’s Michael Moore-ish speech on Iraq.  So a very good August for Mr Clarke but how much is his leadership bid a media bubble?  Until he starts winning the support of new MPs (compared with 2001 he has only lost supporters) he will not give David Davis sleepless nights…

David Davis (+1) “thinks that the contest is his to lose” – according to Peter Oborne – and has consequently adopted a policy of “predatory inactivity”.  “Inactivity” is a little too harsh a judgment.  Mr Davis has been consistently active as Shadow Home Secretary during the month – consensual on 7/7 issues and confrontational on Labour’s licensing hours policy.  This blog has already reported his ‘rolling thunder’ programme of endorsements planned for the whole of September and a ‘manifesto’ is also expected to be published before party conference.  Mr Oborne is right – this remains DD’s race to lose – but can we, please, have a little more to inspire us?  The Davis camp is not yet demonstrating that it understands the seriousness of the Tory plight.

Liam Fox (-2) has been very, very quiet during August (only popping up to attack the ‘phoney war’ of this leadership race last Sunday).  Yesterday’s FT said that we can expect a proper campaign launch in two weeks’ time but he’ll need to act sooner than that to avoid the way media programmes are increasingly ignoring him.  One way back into the limelight will be to champion grassroots members’ voting rights and Wednesday’s Telegraph hinted that this is now Dr Fox’s intention.

Dr Fox standing against Michael Howard’s reforms will mean that three of the last four Tory Chairmen will be opposed to the proposed disenfranchisement.  One of the four – David Davis – has, disappointingly, not opted to comment.  Theresa May (-5) has been the real heroine of the party democracy campaign and wrote the best article of that campaign.  I’m a big fan of Theresa.  She is one of the nicest people in the Conservative Party and deserves a top job in the next shadow cabinet.  Her leadership bid isn’t going anywhere, however.  No observer has even identified one parliamentary supporter – but that probably says more about the parliamentary party than Mrs May.

Malcolm Rifkind deserves a +1.  He now has more declared supporters than David Willetts and worked hard throughout August although was rightly criticised for ‘trashing the brand’ during his "deeply, deeply defective" interview.  I still think anti-Iraq war Rifkind will eventually endorse Ken Clarke but, in a sign that he’s determined to personally fly the flag for his one nation Conservatism, he’s pointedly distanced himself from the former Chancellor’s European views.

No-new-supporters-David-Willetts gets a –3.  ‘No new supporters’ is not quite true as Big Brother’s Derek is reportedly a fan but he’s received no new parliamentary backers.  Mr Willetts disappeared during August although he has been fighting for the nation’s right to those Chinese-manufactured bras over the last few days.  Ken Clarke heaped praise on Mr Willetts’ shoulders in Wednesday’s Mail and DW’s imprimatur is amongst the hottest property of this leadership race.

PS I’ve now dropped Andrew Lansley from the list of contenders.  He has no identifiable supporters and expect an imminent endorsement of Mr Clarke (he backed him in ’01).

Pitch-perfect Cameron impresses

There are an increasing number of visitors to this blog and for new folk (as George W Bush would describe them) I should say that impartiality is thrown aside in this ‘Good week, bad week’ feature and I present a personal and partial review of the last seven days. If you want to read the five previous reviews please scroll down the GWBW category page.

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK (EDITION SIX)

The week started with David Cameron (+2) addressing the Centre for Social Justice. The Telegraph loved the speech and so did I. The most impressive thing about DC was his manner and the way he answered the questions from the poverty-fighting groups that IDS had assembled for the occasion. DC was pitch-perfect. An expression I’ve used before to describe one of his recent Any Questions? performances. The performance reminded me of Matthew Parris’ endorsement of DC of last Saturday:

“He is completely without swagger yet never without command. He has the courtesy of a leader. He treads softly. He does not rush to judgment yet leaves you in no doubt he exercises judgment. He is the most well-judged potential Tory leader we have seen in years.”

I’m a social conservative and have suspected that David Cameron – who advocated liberal policies on drugs as a new MP – was not my ‘cup of tea’. But he encouraged me with his speech on marriage and he appears to have a real passion for the poorest members of society. To my surprise I’m becoming more and more interested in his candidacy. At the start of this contest I would have considered voting for Davis, Fox or Willetts. David Cameron is now on that list of four. I’ll be watching to see if he adopts robust positions on crime and the war on terror in the remainder of the contest.

David Cameron picked up two more parliamentary backers this week – and David Davis (+2) gained the supported of Patrick Mercer (see ’Who’s backing who?’ for a full run-down of candidates’ supporters). DD remains the frontrunner and he’s proving as consensual as David Cameron has urged Conservatives to be with the way he has worked with Charles Clarke and Mark Oaten in the aftermath of 7/7.

Liam Fox (+1) has been in Washington for much of the week and held talks with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Yesterday he highlighted the problem of Britain’s ‘broken society’ in another speech to the Centre for Social Justice. The speech focused on domestic violence.

As for the other candidates… Ken Clarke said he probably would stand. Nothing from Malcolm Rifkind. Andrew Lansley, David Willetts and especially Theresa May deserve special commendation for being part of the pro-democracy Telegraph Ten.

Many will hope that some of the ‘junior’ candidates would follow Alan Duncan’s lead and quit the race. I certainly hope they won’t imitate the manner of his departure, however. His attack on the “Tory Taliban” was a gift to our party’s political opponents. I wonder if Mr Duncan has any idea how offensive the Taliban adjective is? Afghanistan’s Taliban regime was dictatorial and murderous. Thank God George W Bush decided to rid the world of it. Mr Duncan probably thinks that President Bush’s views on abortion and family make him a Taliban conservative, in need of being “rooted out”. AD is talking nonsense. What we need – if at all possible - is a ‘change alliance’ between what I’ve called ‘Soho’ and ‘Easterhouse modernisers’ – not a fight between them.

LIST OF SHAME

Another fight that should never have been necessary is the fight to protect one member one vote. And I end this week’s GWBW with my ‘list of shame’ - with degree of shame declining as the list goes on…

Top of the list are the 127 MPs who voted to disenfranchise the grassroots party workers who did so much to put them in parliament. Shame on you.

Then comes the Party Board who purport to represent rank-and-file members but sold them out in their sham-consultation deal with the 1922 Committee. Shame on you.

The ’22 itself and Michael Howard come next. Mr Howard wrote to MPs telling them that it was this deal or chaos. In that he conspired with the ’22 and their Machiavellian timetabling of the vote for the last week before summer recess. MPs could have used previous weeks to vote on other options but they deliberately let the time run out. Shame on you.

The members who have told their MPs that they don’t want the vote. Shame on you. That may be OK for you but what about Tory members in target and little-hope seats who don’t have an MP? ConservativeHome.com’s survey of members showed a majority in favour of members retaining some direct vote in the leadership election.

Finally a little bit of shame on David Cameron, David Davis and Liam Fox. They all abstained in Wednesday’s vote. They said it was wrong for them to influence the rules of a race that they were likely to participate in. But isn’t there a really big democratic principle at stake here? Taking the vote away from people is something foreign to the reforming history of the Conservative Party. Giving more power to MPs gives more power to the dispatch-box/ point-scoring/ PMQs/ yahboo mentality that has so damaged the party and politics generally. Come on guys – please stand alongside democracy and members in general – and campaign for a compromise option (perhaps an electoral college) at September’s Constitutional Convention. Please!

Liam Fox makes some progress but it's still David Davis' race to lose

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK (EDITION FIVE)

I’m only rating three of the candidates this week. None of the others have done anything that I have noticed. And in the aftermath of 7/7 I certainly can’t make any complaint about that.

Liam Fox (+3) has had the best of the week. He won new friends at a Tuesday night gathering of twenty socially conservative MPs. It’s unclear whether those friends will become pledged supporters but he performed better than the Davids Cameron and Davis who were also “interviewed” by the group.

The Shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech on human rights provided the other positive element. If the Tories are going to reconnect with the floating voters (that we need to lift us above the flatlining thirties and towards a majority-making 44%) we need some megawatt events. Addressing human rights abuses in, for example, Darfur, Congo and Burma may be one megawatt event. I, personally, think a strong position on stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other repressive regimes might also attract a new generation to the conservative coalition. Dr Fox’s speech on human rights lacked detail but he’s set out on a really promising track.

David Cameron (+1) picked up the support of Peter Luff. Perhaps more importantly George Osborne, very close to Cameron, gave a very solid speech on economic policy. DC didn’t make much progress with the ‘group of twenty’ but he came across as very likeable.

DD (-1) didn’t have such a good week. Last week Wat Tyler, the enthusiastic blogger for the Davis campaign, interpreted a couple of my posts as suggesting I was about to come out for the frontrunner. That wasn’t an entirely unreasonable conclusion to draw. I do like DD’s policies. I find his life story compelling. I think he’s up to the job of leader. Most importantly he has the grit to set a course and stick to it. But I’ve always wondered about his ability to unite the party. Too many of his colleagues really dislike his inner team.

This week my doubts have grown on that front for two reasons:

(1) ‘Wat Tyler’ tried to explain the negative reaction of the ‘group of twenty’ by falsely identifying the group as aggrieved IDS supporters. I know that many of that group are actually wanting to vote for DD and wanted to be reassured that he would be an inclusive leader that wouldn’t shut his door to alternative perspectives. His “thin-skinned” responses to two difficult lines of questioning offered no reassurance. Reassurance is needed because of the way some of DD’s lieutenants are bullying MPs and because of warnings that the best jobs will only be given to supporters.

(2) Yesterday ConservativeHome.com published an article by childcare practitioner Lauren Booth. It included an important message for Mr Davis, in particular, and for the Conservative Party in general. Lauren, who is inclined to support DD, urged him to become more emotionally committed to people. She cited an encounter they had had when he did not engage with her. She rightly said that voters aren’t just looking for someone with clever arguments and strong principles. They are wanting someone who’s on their side – someone who, she said, will be their "hero". Yesterday a senior aide to DD and one of his parliamentary supporters admonished me for publishing the piece. The MP told me that an article attacking DD’s policies would have been perfectly legitimate but not an attack on his ability to connect with one individual. I have to disagree. The best politicians – Thatcher, Reagan, Clinton, Blair – are able to establish connections with voters. They assure people that they are ‘on their side’. In order to achieve an electoral breakthrough the Conservative Party needs a politician who can connect on an emotional level with the electorate – not just intellectually. Read Lauren’s article. She puts a difficult argument very well.

I’m probably one of the very few people who thinks that this extended leadership election is turning out to be a good thing. Sure - it’s not good in every way. It’s straining Tory finances, for example. But it is testing candidates. I’ve previously advocated a US-primary-system-of-election. There are many advantages of such a system and, above all, it forces candidates to address weaknesses. John McCain’s 1999 primary campaign forced George W Bush to refine his messages, improve his debating skills and rejig his staff. He was consequently better prepared for the clash that followed with Al Gore. This process will fail if candidates stamp on constructive criticisms. It will succeed if the candidates get a better understanding of their weaknesses and act to address them.

The bookies say that it’s 60% likely that DD will be the next Tory leader and one leadership contender, talking to me yesterday, conceded that this is still DD’s race to lose. He’s less likely to lose it if he builds some bridges with old foes and if he controls the harder-edged tactics of his coterie. I’m watching and hoping…

David Davis - against privilege and for reform - wins the week

GOOD WEEK, BAD WEEK (EDITION FOUR)

Even before Thursday’s bombings the Tory leadership race had slowed a little. In the week of Live8, G8 and the Olympics decision the competition for attention was intense and most contenders decided to pipe down.

The very start of the week offered the only real windows of media opportunity and David Davis used Monday night to make a big speech to the CPS. The speech enjoyed a broad welcome from The Daily Telegraph and, more importantly (!), from visitors to this blog. It also stood out from the crowd of other interventions that have often appeared clichéd and platitudinous. Peter Riddell mocked up a standard Tory leadership speech in Wednesday’s Times:

”We have lost touch with the people. We must modernise/ occupy the centre ground (or not, depending on the fashion of the week). Freedom and the family should be at the centre of our appeal. We should aim for a smaller State and lower taxes, while guaranteeing every child a proper education and every patient prompt care. We should stand for individual liberty and personal freedom, while protecting hard-working families from yobs and criminals with zero-tolerance policing. We should resist the encroachments of the nanny State while opposing violent and sexually explicit television programmes and videos.”

The Economist found DD’s speech refreshingly different. Concluding that the Shadow Home Secretary has a clear compass on public service reform and tax policy, it gave the credit to the Reform think tank. If DD becomes leader, Reform and its former director, Nick Herbert MP, the author of the CPS speech, will become hugely influential. So, in a special award, I give Reform +2 and advise everyone to carefully study their manifesto.

For ‘Watlington’, who has become a stand-out observer of the Tory leadership race on the Social Affairs Unit blog, DD’s speech was an important attack on privilege. Watlington writes:

”Although seen by some as an attack on the Notting Hill set, Mr Davis was making a much wider point. He was saying that as someone from humble origins who had made it to the top, he knew about aspiration and merit as opposed to privilege and patronage. Herein lies a kernel of a modern Tory story. __It is a story that fights against privilege wherever it occurs. For example a mission against privilege says that everyone, rather than just the pushy or the rich, should have access to the best healthcare and education and have the levers of power to make sure that this is so. It says that the lowest paid should pay less tax so that they have the same opportunity as higher rate tax payers. It says that Conservatism should stand up for the small business rather than the unfair cartels of the multinationals. Above all, an attack on privilege means a sense of social justice. It means an open society based on giving people a fair deal rather than one in which all the levers of power are in the hands of the state. It means a society that liberates economic and social entrepreneurs to fulfil their potential but also ensures that those left behind are properly and compassionately cared for.”

DD gets +3 for the speech and the week overall. It was a brave speech and he confirmed his reputation for bold thinking. He also promises speeches on social reform and foreign policy. The foreign policy speech will need to include thoughts on the war on terror and homeland security. Peter Riddell’s mock speech doesn't even include a empty phrase about the 9/11 world. That absence is a small confirmation of the fact that none of the Tory leadership candidates have yet outlined a strategy to protect the British people. I award a –1 to each of the four candidates who opposed the Iraq stage of the war on terror. Some pundits have already started to partly blame the Iraq war for Thursday’s carnage. But such people have an impossible problem with chronology. The war began on 9/11 - which happened before Saddam was toppled. Leaving Iraq will only embolden the terrorists and as the group claiming responsibility for attacking London said:

”We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Notice the “and Afghanistan.” Al-Qaeda etc want the western powers thrown out of the many territories that they want to terrorise and Talibanise.

David Cameron was on Any Questions? last night and gave a compassionate and statesmanlike performance. He criticised the tendency towards anti-Americanism of another panellist and opposed Labour’s voluntary ID cards bill as being irrelevant to terrorism.

That performance – with perfect tone – and two more parliamentary endorsements gives him +2 for the week.

David Willetts receives +1 because of last week’s speech to the Child Poverty Action Group which The Economist described as “compassionate and lucid”.

In last Sunday's Observer Liam Fox (+1) tiptoed further away from his opening Cut The Size Of The State speech to a more subtle concern about the tension between market economics and social cohesion.

Winning The Theresa May Hero Of The Week award was Michael Ancram for supporting grassroots members’ voting rights.