Women For Davis

Given the way everyone keeps banging on about the female vote, it's good to see two of our leading female commentators coming out in support of DD.

In the Times, Patience Wheatcroft says:

'The Conservative Party should not despair that it agrees with much of what Mr Blair says; what it needs to do is persuade the country that it can actually deliver on these aims rather than continue merely to repackage them and throw yet more cash at them. David Davis appears to have grasped this fact.

...Change for change’s sake is pointless. Looking younger, friendlier, more welcoming or whatever else Mr Cameron has in mind will not win votes from a country increasingly fed up with a leader who is intent on looking all those things, even if it means employing the services of a make-up artist.

What the next Tory leader has to be able to do is to convince the country that he — or she — can do better at delivering change, in the public services and in society, than has new Labour. On that measure, Mr Davis will take some beating.'

To which we can only nod sage agreement.

Meanwhile the flirtatious Petronella Wyatt (yes, that Petronella) cuts straight to the chase:

'A poll recently found that of all the leadership candidates, Davis was the one women found the sexiest. ‘Oh, God, I heard about that.’ He looks terrified. Did he tell his no-nonsense, red-headed wife, Doreen? ‘Absolutely not. She often calls me a male chauvinist pig.’ I wonder if Davis has any sexual skeletons in his closet.

‘Do women come on to you at parties?’ I inquire. (I have actually seen this happen.) He blushes peony-pink. ‘What a question to ask me! I have no sexual skeletons, Petronella!’

Gawd, she's a one, that Pet, ain't she.

But she certainly comes to the right conclusion:

'Davis may be right to be confident. Of all the leadership contenders, he is perhaps the man most likely. Unlike Clarke he carries no baggage, has physical energy on his side, and is more in tune with his party and its values. If only he would work on his speeches more.'

Which, interestingly, he accepts.

Davis And That Blunkett Scalp

Over at PoliticalBetting, site owner Mike Smithson has taken to dissing Our Man. His latest poke goes:

'Until yesterday’s formal launch of the David Davis campaign for the Tory leadership not everybody fully realised the part that Davis played in Blunkett’s departure. For in a BBC potted history of the paternity affair the Shadow home Secretary’s name appears just once and that was a reference to a call he made sixteen days before the departure.

But according to the short biography on his campaign website one of Davis’s achievements, we are told, was that it was he who “prompted” Blunkett’s resignation...he is talking about something that happened amidst a huge amount of publicity just ten months ago and is within people’s recall. You have to be careful about taking the credit for things that people know about.'

Oooh. Back in the knife box Miss Sharp!!

Of course, the first point is that neither you nor I would reference the BBC to support such a charge. But then, Mr S was a longtime BBC man- and is a Lib-Dem to boot- so almost certainly doesn't see the extraordinary bias so apparent to the rest of us.

Looking at the real record of DD's scalping campaign, we find that by early-December 2004 (MS's "sixteen days before") he'd been hard at work for weeks, including tabling 'dozens of parliamentary questions', all aimed at boxing-in the evasive Blunkett. Because in taking on the sleazy underbelly of New Labour, you need to be absolutely sure there's nowhere for them to run. Which is exactly what DD did.

In Blunkett's case it was particularly important not to move prematurely. As you will recall, most of the media- especially the BBC- were incredibly indulgent towards his behaviour, and the last thing Davis wanted was to get his attack characterised as more Victorian moralising from the Tories. Which it wasn't.

So he took his time, but kept the pressure on. The intervention noted on the BBC "potted history" was actually just the point at which Davis was ready to pin Blunkett against the wall. He told Breakfast With Frost:

“If [Blunkett] took the papers in [visa papers], and if that led to influence, even if he didn’t give the instruction in writing, as I’m sure he didn’t, that, I’m afraid, is a very unwise thing for him to do and I actually do think this is a resigning issue.”

Two weeks later, Blunkett was gone.

Nuff said.


PS Actually, I find it rather sad that Mike S has taken to bashing Davis. PBC is an excellent blog, and Smithson's usp is to remain above the mud-slinging. He should leave that sort of stuff to people like Guido and we peasants.

Anyone Actually Going To The Conference?

Conference virgins Mrs T and I are packing our swimmies and Ambre Solaire Factor 20 for the jaunt to Blackpool. But having read this post on DD's new blog, we're wondering quite what we've let ourselves in for:

'David Davis wants to end the "out-dated'' annual party conference...It comes amid mounting concern across the political divide about the long decline of the traditional staged-for-TV conference. Audiences were so small for BBC coverage for the Liberal Democrat event, also held in Blackpool a fortnight ago, that crude overnight figures recorded no viewers.

And among those in Brighton for Labour this week a chief topic of conversation was how few people had made the trip. Restaurants that were formerly reservation-only during conference week had tables free at 8.30pm while once-popular bars were almost empty. Photographers almost staged a walk-out after being denied access to the balcony from where all the empty seats could be seen. Those who do attend are increasingly either young party hacks or those who have retired.'

Cripes. We don't want to go to a conference just to meet young party hacks and those who've retired. We can get all that at home.

Is there anyone else out there who's actually going?

PS I'm sure this pic wasn't in the brochure.

Bloggers For Davis 24

We're always delighted to welcome new Bloggers for Davis, and David Davis- Modern Conservatives brings a welcome return for longtime blogger Iain Dale.

What's that you say?

And DD will be blogging there as well?

It's too good to miss- add to your favourites immediately.

Unpicking The Recognition Factor

We have always recognised that right now Ken has a higher recognition factor than DD, and yes, he's popular, even if it's in an Arthur Daley sort of way. What we've disputed is that his popularity would actually translate into election winning votes: polling evidence suggests otherwise.

So we were very interested to see the YouGov poll in this week's Spectator. Their new angle was to give respondents fuller information about each of the four leading candidates, so as to level the recognition playing field. They conclude:

'Without the immediate advantage of recognition, Ken Clarke was no longer the front-runner. Once the public were given pictures and information about candidates they may not previously have been familiar with, David Cameron and David Davis became the candidates who most increased people’s likelihood to vote Conservative.'

On the face of it, good news for DD and DC, and closely echoing that Sunday Telegraph focus group finding way back in May (doesn't that seem a long time ago).

In fairness, we do have to recognise that the YouGov poll was not what you might call scientific. The fuller information provided on each candidate was not consistent across candidates- there was a large measure of subjectivity in deciding which points to mention and what wording to use.

But it's difficult to argue with Anthony Wells' overall assesment that "important finding of the poll is that Ken Clarke’s lead really is just down to increased recognition - tell respondents about who the other candidates are, what they look like and some of the things they stand for, and they too can be just as popular".

What this once again underlines is that we should definitely definitively categorically not be driven by recognition factor polling in picking our leader. Despite what Ken might want to argue to the contrary.

Support Davis

DD's campaign website is now up. Go to it and register your support.

Do it now.

Also Launched "The Tory Blair"

As well as DD, David Cameron also launched his formal leadership bid today. Mrs T watched it on the telly, and not for the first time, said "he's very good- makes all the rest of them look like amateurs".

And yes, he is very good- confident, articulate, and a good sense of humour. And in a similar vein, there's a very supportive profile of him in today's Grauniad:

'To his supporters - especially fellow members of the "Notting Hill Set" of modernising, young London Conservatives - Cameron represents the holy grail. He's telegenic, approachable, sanely eurosceptic, socially liberal, unburdened by baggage: a Blair for the Tories, though you'd never catch them putting it like that.

Above all, he stands a chance of addressing the party's central image problem, which is that for years now, in many circles, admitting to being a Tory has meant admitting not just to certain socioeconomic beliefs, but to being, somehow, a bit weird.'

All of which- according to Mrs T- came across powerfully at his launch. But as I keep trying to explain to her, he does have two or three drawbacks.

First, there's toffdom. Yes, I know, in 2005 Britain it doesn't matter. Except that...well, the next Labour leader doesn't agree, as we heard when he reviewed our candidates:

"David Cameron - the only new face - is an old Etonian. Their answer to their problems: not new 21st century conservatives, today's Tory party simply the same old rerun of the same old boys' network."

And I'm afraid he'd have much more fun like that with DC as leader. Even though the Blessed Tone is pretty well out of that same drawer.

Then there's the matter of DC's "managerialist" leanings. We've blogged about this before, and I remain concerned. On the other hand, Mrs T says nobody out in the real world gives a stuff whether he's managerialist or surrealist or even dematerialist. Our priority is to get re-elected. So strictly in terms of getting re-elected, maybe we should ignore that (although I'm not going to).

But what nobody can ignore is his extraordinary inexperience. He's only been an MP for some four years. And Education is his first major shadow post. In contrast, by the time he became leader, Tone had been an MP for eleven years, and had held a slew of frontbench posts. He had proved himself in the fire.

Interestingly, DC this morning arguing the need for change, said:

"The choice for the party has got to be who do you think really believes it?

Who will really stick to it when the going gets tough and the press attack you after a couple of years and say this is not distinctive enough, it isn't attacking enough?"

We agree. We also think such toughness is going to be a vital requirement for our next leader, which we think is one of DD's key attractions. Of course, it may well be that Cameron also possesses it. But unlike DD, he's never demonstrated it to us. In reality we know very little about him, and we haven't seen him tested by that fire.

As has been said over and over again during the Phoney Campaign, DC- and indeed several others among our newer MPs- look terrific hopes for the future. But right now- 2005- it's just too soon.

And reluctantly, after an appropriately "robust" debate, even Mrs T agrees.

DD Formally Launches Campaign

David Davis formally launched his leadership campaign this morning. With a podium backdrop proclaiming "Modern Conservatives" and "Changing Britain, Improving Lives", his speech called for radical change to improve society:

"The heart of this change must be to empower people and let them realise their full potential. I was drawn into politics by Churchill's dream of a Britain in which "there is a limit beneath which no man may fall, but no limit to which any man might rise".

I want to build a new consensus for change, using modern conservative ideas to achieve the goal of social justice which for too long have been claimed by the left:
- opportunity for the many and not just the privileged few.
- public services as good as those of our European neighbours.
- a strong economy and a better society."

It was heavily attended, with many familiar faces from the Westminster village and well beyond. Tyler was lucky enough to be there, but of course it was principally a TV event, aimed at the assembled Adam Boultons, Nick Robinsons and Garry Gibbons and their attendant cameras.

But I was more impressed by the depth of support from our party's leading thinkers. David Willetts naturally gave a short speech reiterating why he was supporting DD. And I spotted the heads of several leading thinktanks, including Reform and the CPS. They see in Davis what we see: a leader who will finally, at long, long last, have the confidence and conviction to take those exciting ideas and give us a platform for government.

We're on our way.

Europe Already Biting Ken

We all know the BBC is backing Ken. But even they can't resist having a go over Europe.

This morning on the Today programme, Ed Stourton wasted no time in suggesting that Ken had "sneaked out" his change of heart on the Euro in that interview for the Central Banking journal. So perhaps he'd like to "clarify" his position for a wider audience.

Waving his cigar around, Ken blustered, dismissing Ed with an injunction to "look at the article in Central Banking".

But Ed wouldn't be deterred: "Are you saying your position has changed?"

"Maaah...irrelevant...made it quite clear...maaah....anyone who thinks otherwise is not living on the planet...only people who...maaah!"

"Your reputation is for straight talking...but this answer doesn't qualify as straight talking."

"Look, are you going to spend the whole interview talking about the Euro? It's not why I agreed to come on this morning..."

He was beginning to sound more than a tad tetchy, and his kneejerk was to turn on us party members. "Only a strange fringe of the Conservative Party think that an interview on peak time on radio should be all about the Euro."

And just listen to the way he says Conservative Party. It's more than a term of abuse- he sounds as if he's describing some weird child sacrificing sect. Certainly not a party he aspires to lead.

Two-thirds of the entire interview was spent on the Euro. But finally they did turn to something else: whether Ken's tobacco job meant he was a "merchant of death".

And just remember: all this was meant to be a gentle fire-side chat with a loving Auntie. Can you just imagine what Eurosceptic Gordo and the dark legions of New Labour would do with it?

Ken may have hoped his Europhilia was now safely tucked up in the long grass. What we heard this morning was a sharp reminder that it is not.

Getting On With It

Yesterday's rejection of the Howard/Maude/Monbiot plan was a vital first step on our path to winning the next election.

Yes of course, it would have been better if the plan had never been cooked up in the first place- and we should all keep a careful note of those who were promoting it. But let's have no more hand-wringing: we are where we are, and right now the clear imperative is just to get on with it.

May we reiterate that our MPs have a particular responsibility to ensure we don't have a repetition of the IDS experience. Theirs is the power to winnow down the candidates to that shortlist of two- either of whom they could work with. And this time, they need to take that responsibility seriously.

We all understand about grudges and axes, and what fun it is to plot and conspire. We all heard that unedifying whoop of joy Ann Widdecombe emitted when she heard M Portillo hadn't made the 2001 final cut.

But come on guys- you're meant to be the "most sophisticated electorate in the world". Please concentrate very hard and make sure you present us with two candidates you genuinely believe could do the job in Westminster. Two candidates who are- among other things- capable of knocking heads together when the going gets tough.

Lord Hodgson- who is someone who actually knows- reckons "it is perfectly possible for this election to be completed in eight weeks".

We expect to have our new leader in place by Christmas.

Losers Declare For Ken

After a long period when Ken's declared support among MPs has remained stuck on 12, he's decided to widen the net.

So this morning sees support for Clarke from 30 nearly-MPs- Tory PPCs who were defeated in the last election. They include Sheila Gunn, John Major's former press secretary, and they say:

'As candidates in this year's general election, we represented constituencies that our party must win if it is to defeat Labour at the next election. The electorate is telling us that the Conservative Party would be mad not to elect Ken Clarke to lead it.'

The only problem of course is that...well, ahem...they're all losers.

And also, I happen to know the constituency for which Sheila herself stood- Slough- because I grew up there. Lovely place of course. But certainly not a constituency "that our party must win if it is to defeat Labour at the next election". In fact, throughout the last millenium it was solidly Labour, only ever falling into our hands once (1964-66), and then only because Labour got so cocky they put up a pacifist octogenarian. (Strangely, the Tory who temporarily took the seat was Sir Anthony Meyer, who much later found fame as the front half of a pantomime stalking horse).

What's more, when we talk about what the people want, we should remember Sheila's entry into the Slough race was imposed on the good people of the "Safety Town" by the apparatchiks at CCO. The local party had selected a strong local candidate- Adrian Hilton- but CCO took exception to a Spectator article he had written. Their response was to grab the controls: the local party was put in "supported status" - which meant that its officers were suspended and all decisions are made on its behalf by a representative from Conservative Central Office, which then imposed Sheila Gunn.

The Times quoted Hilton as saying:

"There are people at Central Office behaving like little dictators and, seemingly, people who are ordinary members are being treated with contempt.

I am simply appalled at the way the Slough Association has been treated. These are people who have been working their backsides off since 1997 to get an MP for Slough who is Conservative once again. Now they have been disbanded and they haven't even been told officially that they have been disbanded."

Sound familiar at all?

At least the latest anti-democratic power grab by these jokers looks like heading for defeat.

Hurrah.

The Big Push

Despite the latest hour-long propaganda broadcast from the BBC's determined "Campaign For A Ken Victory", his own front-line troops are getting extremely jumpy.

Yesterday, a wild-eyed John Bercow burst out of the Clarke bunker screaming that DD was about to give him "a lethal injection".

He then charged off towards the Cameron trenches yelling "Eton, hunting, shooting and lunch at Whites!"

Later, after being rescued by a medical team and heavily sedated, he tearfully mumbled "We will be sleepwalking to a fourth successive slaughter and deservedly so."

Yes, yes, John...you just try to get some rest, now. Field Marshal Ken has actually only suffered two previous slaughters, and now we just need one more push.

The Big Push.

Davis Wows Ladies

The Mail On Sunday has polled women on the leadership candidates:

'Women voters regard David Davis as far more 'attractive' than his rivals, the British Polling Index survey reveals.

And crucially, despite rating Mr Clarke more highly on all serious counts, women are still more likely to vote Tory if Mr Davis becomes leader. While women respect Mr Clarke's weighty experience, his weighty appearance lets him down. Just two per cent - one in 50 - of women say they find the cigar-smoking, pint-drinking, pot-bellied Mr Clarke sexy.

By contrast, nearly one in three women said they found Mr Davis attractive. The 56-year-old, whose nose was broken several times during teenage brawls, stays in shape by going on long hikes through the Pennines.'

So there we have it. That crucial female vote we're all so concerned about? With DD at the helm, it's no longer a problem.

Another New High Point For Davis

Over on PoliticalBetting, Smithson has again updated his chart of implied probabilities for the leadership.

The punters have pushed DD up to yet another new high of 68% (0.47/1) chance of success. Meanwhile, Ken is back down to 20%, and...well, we'll draw a veil over the others.

The punters are with him.

The MPs are with him.

And the sun is shining.

Who could really ask for more?

True Grit

An argument you sometimes hear is that Davis is yet another in a dismal sequence of failed right-wing leaders. They start out promising to pursue a "modernising" aganda, but as soon as the going gets rough they revert to their "default settings", holed up back in that right-wing redboubt taking poorly aimed shots at the real world outside.

We've never believed DD fits that pantomime caricature, but it's interesting to see what the v brainy Dr Greg Clarke says about it. He's the new MP for Tunbridge Wells who declared for DD yesterday.

And he knows a thing or two about retreats to that redoubt, having been appointed Conservative strategy director by William Hague in 2001. He subsequently established a policy unit which 'developed a new agenda for the Party, based on two themes:

• serious reform of the public services to give independence to professionals and choice to the people who use these services; and
• a focus on the people and communities 'left behind'.

Sound familiar? Hmm...yees. It never really got incorporated in our 2005 Election platform though, did it. And Greg reckons he knows why:

"Having worked for three successive Leaders of the Opposition I have seen at first hand how day-to-day pressures can make even the most well-intentioned Leader the slave of the next day's headline writers. That is why it is essential to have a Leader who has from the outset a serious agenda for government, and who has the personal tenacity to stick to that agenda and refuse to be blown off course.

David Davis has the right vision for Britain. When he was Party Chairman, he said that the test of any policy must be what it does to help the most vulnerable in society. He was among the first to recognise the need to bring our public services into line with the best in the world, and he helped construct policies to take power away from central government and unaccountable bodies and give it back to local communities and citizens.

I have worked with David for several years, and I know that he is strong enough to withstand the pressures a Leader of the Opposition, still more a Prime Minister, faces without being deflected from his purpose."

Spot on.

More MPs Declare For Davis

Five more MPs have declared for DD.

David Liddington and Mark Hoban were both originally David Willetts supporters, and have now followed him into the Davis camp.

Hoban was yet another supporter of Michael Portillo in 2001, as was Mark Field, from George Osborne's shadow Treasury team.

Stuart Jackson is a member of our 2005 intake, again demonstrating the breadth of DD's appeal.

Finally, Nigel Evans- the Vice-Chairman of Conservatives Abroad- has come aboard.

According to the rolling update at ConservativeHome, this puts DD on 56 declared MP supporters, with Cameron still on 13, Ken still on 12, Doc still on 10, and Sir Malcolm still on 5.

Another interesting fact is neither Cameron, nor Doc, nor Sir Malcolm have had any endorsements from any of their shadow teams. The entire Home Affairs team has of course declared for DD.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Cameron "Mudslinging"

According to the Telegraph, David Cameron has chucked some of the brown stuff at leadership rivals DD and Ken:

"I am worried that we will sleepwalk to another defeat if the choice is between staying on a Right-wing agenda, more of the same. That way we will not show we've changed."

Splat, DD!

"But on the other hand if we go down a path where we say that the European issue somehow doesn't matter any more, and we're not going to engage in that, I think instead of political suicide, that's national suicide."

Splot, Ken!

Actually, as mud goes...umm, it doesn't seem that bad. A tad overwrought perhaps, but that's hardly surprising given the parlous state of DC's campaign (Betfair probability of winning now only 7%).

But clearly DC needs to be careful and consider the future. A Davis supporter made the key point:

"We shouldn't be saying things like this, because at the end of the day we're all in one party and after the contest we've got to work together. These personal attacks are not beneficial."

Let's not go back over the Davis dash. But surely, DC can see that DD is no pantomime right-winger: the most exciting practical bits of the modernising agenda (as set out for example in Direct Democracy) form a central plank in DD's platform. And with people like Two-Brains already on board, he surely understands that Davis is serious.

So come on Mr C. Do the right thing.

Greg Clarke For Davis

Another declaration for DD- Greg Clarke, the new MP for Tunbridge Wells.

This brings the total number of MPs who have declared for Davis to 52 (on my- not always watertight- count).

Keith Simpson For Davis

More good news. Shadow Foreign Office Minister Keith Simpson has today declared for DD:

"I intend supporting David Davis for the leadership of the Conservative Party. In a speech today on 'Britain's Place in ther World' David spoke passionately about the need for us to develop a foreign and security policy based upon new thinking, the right values and enlightened national interest. I think this will resonate with the British public.

I have known David since we were students together and I believe that he now has the necessary qualities and experience to be the leader of the Conservative Party in opposition and then, more importantly, in government as Prime Minister."

In 2001 Keith initially supported Michael Portillo, switching to Ken Clarke in the final run-off. Again this highlights the breadth of DD's support.

And far be it from us to comment on the fact that one of Liam's shadow team has decided to support DD. The shadow Home Affairs team, of course, have unanimously come out for DD.

So come on Liam. We like your ideas. Isn't it time to do the right thing and join up with Davis?

DD On Foreign Policy

DD's foreign policy speech this morning is thoughtful and wide-ranging, covering the importance of the Atlantic Alliance, security, the reform of international institutions, and international development.

But for many, of course, it is the section on Europe which will be most closely studied. He has always described himself as Euro-sceptic, but as we've discussed before, there are some who still feel he blotted his copybook when he worked as a whip for John Major during that horrendously destructive Maastrict/Bastards struggle.

Today he spells out his vision for an "Open Europe":

"It is plainly wrong to believe that Europe is not a current issue or that the Constitution is dead. In the next few years there is likely to be a fresh attempt to re-write the EU treaties...

In truth, the world has changed, but the way in which the European elite conceives of its purpose has not. The Euro may be failing and unpopular and the European Constitution in cold storage, but the drive towards integration, centralisation, bureaucratic intervention and one-size-suits-all policies is set to continue.

Elsewhere, there may be growing recognition of the value of free trade: but the European elite clings onto protectionism, and fights the battle of the bra. This has to change and Britain, for its own sake, must change it...

The Conservative vision, to which I hold, is of a profoundly different kind of Europe. And it has never looked more timely or more attainable. It consists of free cooperation between independent European nations, collaborating where that makes sense, imposing their own priorities where universal agreement is impossible - within the framework of a lightly regulated Single Market to which all must subscribe.

The truth is that much of what the EU does today is not part of the "core business" of the Single Market, and there is no good reason why it should be compulsory for all members to take part in every EU initiative.

The seeds of the approach are already there. Not all are within the Euro. Not every country participates in the Schengen agreement on movement across frontiers. But we should go further. We need to create a structure in which it is possible for member states to choose to take back powers to their own countries.

This is a radical vision but it is the only option that reconciles today's competing views. It recognises differences, it respects national feeling, and it ends the wrangling of competing ideologies for control of the EU."

No, he doesn't- as some would like- issue a threat of unilateral withdrawal if we don't get the reforms he would like to see. And some will see that as disappointing.

But, come on guys, the world has changed dramatically even over the last twelve months. A Davis-led government would be pushing on a door which will be a lot less securely bolted than the one John M battered himself against in the early 90s.

Davis has exactly the right vision for Europe. Two-speed, core/satellite, call it what you will. Give us that lightly regulated single market, and that's pretty well it.

Europe Back From Long Grass?

A key section of DD's foreign policy speech this morning will cover Europe. He will say:

"The euro may be failing and unpopular and the European constitution in cold storage, but the drive towards integration, centralisation, bureaucratic intervention and one-size-suits-all policies is set to continue.''

And anyone who heard M Le Grand President Giscard D'Isdain on BBC R4 Today, will know that the Constitution is going to burst out of that cold store as soon as the tiresome matter of the 2007 French election is out of the way: "the document would ultimately be approved."

Davis 'will call for a "new model for Europe", which will allow Britain to promote its own national interest.'

We await the text with interest.

On The Trail Of A Long-Legged Canard

One of the points constantly made by hand-wringing Tory bloggers is that we are now so unpopular, that voters who like our policies in blind tastings immediately turn off when it's revealed they're Tory policies rather than Stork.

Who says? Well, it's well known...it's been established in polls.

Oh, yeah? Er...what polls exactly?

Umm..well...ah...

OK, turn to the helpful ConservativeHome's Ten Things briefing on "The Conservative Party's electoral plight". It says:

'The Tory brand is so tainted that it has a reverse Midas touch effect on policies. 64% of voters agreed with a Conservative immigration policy when it wasn’t identified with the Tories. The level of agreement collapsed to 30% if voters knew it was a Tory policy.'

Oh. Right. So...just to satisfy my own curiosity, where did that come from?

A C Change report.

C Change? What you mean that modernista outfit headed by...umm, Chairman Maode? Hmmm. So can I see the report?

Go to C Change Website. Umm...nothing doing. Report not posted.

OK- turn to the definitive Anthony Wells. He comments on the C Change report:

'Conservative policies are actually popular - when the public was asked about actual Conservative proposals they were often very supportive of them, until they found out they were Conservative policies, when support plummetted. The thing the Conservatives need to put right is, for want of a better word, their “brand image”, which is invariably negative. C Change’s report (based I believe on the Michael Ashcroft polling) shows 54% thought the Conservative campaign “mean, nasty and negative”, 68% thought them opportunistic, 67% thought them out of touch, 58% uncaring.'

So still no polling data on the actual Stork test, just some general material on how voters have a pretty dim view of us. And I've got to say that with Anthony saying "based I believe on...", it makes me even more curious to see the actual poll data. Who were the respondents? How many? When asked?

Anthony naturally also took a shuftie through the Ashcroft polling itself. He says:

'It’s an interesting study, albeit low on any actual conclusions...That said, you can’t commission 12 large tranches of opinion polling without finding something interesting out. I’ve had a peer through the tables, though the sheer volume of them means there is probably much more to look at, but there a few points that leap out.'

Yes, I've had a peer through the tables too...danged if I could find any mention of that Stork test.

Maybe it didn't come from that unposted C Change report at all. In February, BBC Newsnight commissioned an ICM poll, which found that 82% of voters supported the 'idea that immigration should be controlled more strictly', but only 65% supported 'Conservative Policy to control immigration more strictly'.

And on that very slender basis, and chats with Shagger Norris and Rick Nye (both of whom arguably have the teensiest of teensy axes shoved up their jumpers), the BBC apparently concluded that we Tories have "an image problem".

Hmm...

Can anyone out there actually point us in the direction of the original Stork test data? So we can take a good look at it.

(Why do I care? Well, because it's being used as another one of those twenty great reasons why we need to elect Ken. And I'd be much more impressed if there were some facts behind the myth.)


UPDATE: Thanks to a steer from Anthony himself, I've now found a real poll that does contain a Stork Test- on immigration policy. It was conducted in March for the Times by Populus. And what it actually shows is that the proportion of respondents agreeing with Tory policy remained roughly unchanged at about 70% , both blindfolded and with the Tory brand visible. This compared to just over 60% achieved by the Labour policy.

However, the proportion of respondents who disagreed with the Tory policy increased with the blindfolds removed- from around 20% to around 30%. So the net balance in favour obviously fell- from 55% to 43% (still 10% above Labour's policy).

What should we make of this? Well, one interesting point is that in the blindfold test, Labour voters far preferred the Tory policy to their own, which they also disagreed with more than the Tory policy. However, once the blindfolds were removed- guess what- they suddenly discovered they preferred their own policy, and disagreed with the Tory one. A similar effect was present with Tory voters, but because so many more of them agreed with the "home" policy blindfolded, there was much less switching once blindfolds were removed.

On my calculations, that effect alone accounted for almost half of the observed 10% increase in disagreers once tasters could see that Tory brand label.

This is not something we should be losing too much sleep over. And I would not describe it as King Midas In Reverse.

Britain's Place In The World

Tomorrow morning DD is speaking at Chatham House on Britain's place in the world. It will be his first foreign policy speech of the "campaign", and it should particularly interest those who've been wanting to clarify his thinking on Europe.

Entire Home Affairs Team Backs DD

The whole of our frontbench Home Affairs team have declared for DD. Some of course had already declared, but in terms of new MP supporters, that's Cheryl Gillan, Dominic Grieve, and Humpfrey Malins (which we Tylers are particularly pleased about because he's our local MP)..

As Tim Montgomerie at ConservativeHome comments:

'Those who have worked most closely with him in the last two years haven't run into the hands of another courtier but have stayed loyal to Mr Davis.'

Which flatly contradicts those who earlier in the campaign were muttering that Davis could not hope to inspire loyalty.

Along with yesterday's endorsements from Nicholas Winterton and Richard Ottaway, this takes DD's declared support among MPs to 50, a quarter of the Parliamentary party.

Early in the contest, some predicted that DD's best chance would be if we retained member voting. Now some are suggesting that the opposite is true. In fact Tim M is fretting that the Peasants Revolt against that Howard/Maude/Monbiot power grab may actually have the perverse effect of letting Ken in. "The price of democracy can be high," he wails.

To which we say, Tim, have faith in the sound judgement of our fellow members.

DD will be our leader.

Blimpish Blogs Ken Below Waterline

In an outstanding post at Once More, the erudite Blimpish demolishes the case for Ken.

Under the headline "Theoretically and practically a no", Blimp zaps the various arguments. You need to read it- no, you really do- but the essay notes version goes as follows:

Popularity? Doesn't mean votes. Great Chancellor? His joyless, jobless recovery failed to win us the 97 election. Credibility from being Chancellor? Like Labour turning back to Healey in 87. Radical reformer? Implementor of other people's reforms. Centrist candidate? Electorate is moving right, and centrism is no automatic route to victory. Media on his side? Honeymoon period only, unless Ken sides with liberals against us. Non-ideological? His ideology is managerialism- just like Labour.

Blimpish concludes: 'Is this really the way to bring together a new, motivated bloc of voters to build our governing coalition? I don't think it is, somehow. Electing Ken is fighting the last war - he is and would be a damaging diversion.'

Go and read it. Andrew Nontrivialsolutions did, and was so impressed it brought him to his senses after that unfortunate dalliance with Ken. He is proud to remain a Blogger For Davis.

Fox Goes For Yoof Vote

Over on Political Betting woody662 asks:

'Did anyone notice that Liam Fox said there was either 16 or 19 years between him and DD on that dreadful Morgan Platell programme on Saturday? Looks like 13 to me. Had a touch of the Simon Hughes there.'

Fact- DD is 56: Doc is 44 tomorrow.

So happy birthday to him.

How Does It Feel?

For those of us of a certain age, the immortal Dylan was a major formative influence on our lives. So we keenly await Martin Scorsese's documentary next week. And one of the best bits will be the notorious 1966 Manchester gig, when Dylan turned his back on the bearded world of acoustic protest songs and blasted his way into Like A Rolling Stone: electrified and electrifying.

'Judas!' screamed the folkie audience.

'I don't believe you,' he replied enigmatically. And then to the Band, 'Play it f****** loud.'

And you can't help thinking of this as you follow this week's LibDem Conference. The ever-dependable Matthew D'Ancona reports:

'The real split in Blackpool has...been between those Lib Dems...who want their party to have policies that add up, sound practical and look contemporary, and those...who are content to warm the voters' hearts with meaningless promises and dewy-eyed nostalgia. It is between those who see a future for the Lib Dems as potential governing partners, and those who do not.

When Mr Clegg talks about "breaking up" the NHS and making it more responsive to patients, he is not lurching to the Right, but acknowledging that the fate of the core public services and the value for money which they represent will be at the heart of political debate in the next decade. For Mr Cable to declare that "we also need to consider the upper middle-income professionals" when reviewing his party's tax policy is a sign of political maturity, not political sell-out.

This, it must be said, is not a view shared by most Lib Dems, who are screaming betrayal.'

Judas!

We will never appeal to the bearded folkies who still comprise the heart and soul of the LibDems. And neither should we try. Let them continue with their gentle undemanding acoustic protest songs. Harmless and powerless.

But as this week is showing, those Orange Book guys are different. They're not happy. They want more. They hunger for the future of rock.

So let's not blow it by offering them more of that oldtime late-nite jazz. They need the real thing.

F****** loud? In the nicest possible way, obviously.

Winterton For Davis

The FT reports that Nicholas Winterton has declared for DD. He supported IDS in 2001, and takes DD's declared support among MPs to 46.

The report also says that DD will formerly announce his candidacy next Thursday, the same day David Cameron has also chosen. It is expected that all the candidates will have formally put up before the Conference.

The FT also says:

'Michael Ancram, deputy leader and shadow defence secretary, will this week meet a leading member of the Cornerstone Group of Conservative traditionalists amid speculation in Westminster that, if he secures their backing, he would throw his hat in the ring.'

What's that all about? After his performance in 2001, Sir Michael will be fully siezed that he wouldn't win, and as a truly loyal servant of the Party he will be acutely aware there are already far too many hats in that ring. Is it another marker? Is he just trying to head off the most unhelpful idea that Edward Leigh might stand? Or has the FT just bigged up a throwaway remark whispered in some dark Westminster hostelry?

Ken Still Not Magic Bullet

We Tories are fed up with the squabbling, the backstabbing, and most of all the losing. That much we all agree on.

Which is why Ken's pitch- I'm popular, I appeal to LibDems, and I can therefore get us elected- is so seductive. And quite understandably, all across the Realm, Tories of sound mind and sound beliefs are saying they will grit their teeth and vote for Ken because they just want to get elected. Yes, there was that Europe business, but now it's over there in the long stinging nettles somewhere, and anyway, we can no longer afford to be "purist" about such things.

But unfortunately, the polls have never supported that blissful fantasy. Yes, people sort of like him, just as they like Champagne Charlie, or Robbie, or Del Boy. But that's not the same as voting him into power.

So it was that yesterday's Guardian/ICM poll found that a Ken-led Tory party would bomb in an election against Brown and Kennedy. In fact, we'd do worse than we're doing right now. 15% of our existing voters would no longer support us, against which we'd pick up only the equivalent of 10% from switching Labour and LibDem supporters. Leaving us 5% down on the whole deal.

So let me just repeat what I'm afraid is the inescapable reality: KEN IS NOT AN ELECTORAL MAGIC BULLET. There is no alternative to the hard slog of building modern Conservatism.

Which is why I get so distressed when I see people like the excellent Andrew NonTrivialSolutions- one of our very first Bloggers For Davis- getting overwhelmed by Ken Fever.

Please Andrew. Do not go gentle into that good night. Stay with us and help build heaven right here on earth.

Well OK, maybe not heaven...but at least we could get the public services working again.

Ken Ahead On Planet Grauniad

Reporting the stream of MPs now declaring for DD, the Grauniad puts it in context:

"Mr Clarke remains front-runner in the campaign."

Er...come again?

"Mr Clarke remains front-runner in the campaign."

Yes, that's what we thought you said. Well, um...how does that work exactly?

Can't be the number of MP backers, because DD has 45 declared supporters against Ken's 12. And if rumour is to be believed, Davis may have as many as another 40 supporters so far undeclared.

And at the bookies, DD's odds are firming daily, whereas Ken's are now looking decidedly flaccid. This morning the punters at Betfair have pushed DD's implied probability of success to an all-time high of 68%. Whereas Ken has subsided further, down to 21%.

Now we well understand that the Guardian- along with the BBC and other swathes of the liberal media- want Ken to win. But surely they should make some attempt to distinguish between their dreams and the real world.

Shouldn't they?

MacKay Declares For Davis

Further significant support for DD this morning, with Deputy Party Chairman Andrew Mackay declaring for him.

Mackay, another MP who supported Michael Portillo in 2001, noted that DD is in his "political prime" (echoing our own view):

"I am also taken by the wide range of his supporters and believe that he would unite the party with a team of the best talents available."

He praised DD's response to the London bombings, saying: "You see the true metal of a political leader when they perform at short notice in a crisis, as opposed to after much rehearsal by spin doctors. David passed with flying colours."

He is a man of his age, who will reach out to many who have not previously taken an interest in politics, let alone in the Conservative party."

Mackay's endorsement takes DD's declared support among MPs to 45.

To Everything There Is A Season

A comment you sometimes come across in the blogosphere goes along the lines of:

'We have now had three leaders from the right of the Party, all of whom have been electoral disasters, all of whom promised to lead the Party from the centre before indulging in some kind of 'core vote strategy'. More of the same really should not be an option.' (htp Disraeli)

Of course, we've actually had five sequential leaders from the centre-right of the Party (for reasons explained by William Rees Mogg this morning). But we take the general point.

To answer it we need to understand a critical difference between DD and his three immediate predecessors. For different reasons, those three all came into the leadership unprepared. Hague was expecting to be leader one day, but not so soon. I doubt that IDS ever really expected to be leader, but stood because it was his duty to save the Party from the Europhiles. Howard...well, he was on Maggie's list of seven potential leaders, and actually ran in 1997. But he was soundly defeated , and almost certainly didn't really expect to get another bite.

Davis in contrast has been preparing seriously for this moment for some time. Indeed so extensive have been his preparations that some have accused him of o'erweening ambition, and marked him down because of it.

But he will be our first recent leader to have properly taken the time to size up the challenge and map out the way forward. He's already charted the broad outlines of a radical reforming social agenda, based on opportunity not dependency. And he's already assembled a strong core of guys around him, who will be loyal through the tough times as well as the good.

Davis will be a leader of a very different hue from what we've grown used to- tough and single-minded, fully prepared for the challenge ahead, and with three to four years before the next election. He will surprise many with his commitment to tackling social issues. But he will do so from a distinctively Conservative position, rather than the ineffectual managerialism of New Labour.

Davis is in his political prime: experienced and prepared, but still possessed of the drive and energy for the long haul ahead. Now really is the time. Both for him and the Party.

Davis Wonk Takes Flight

Writing in the latest Reform Journal, one of DD's favourite wonks, Nick Herbert- now of course the new MP for poor Howard Flight's old constituency- proclaims "it's time for the Conservatives to become the party of radical reform."

The ex-Director of Reform says:

"Far from altering my commitment to reform, my experience as an MP for the last four months has considerably reinforced it. It began on the doorsteps during the election campaign. What did I have to say to voters about their waits for NHS treatment? Well, we would clean their hospitals. What about soaring council tax? Well, we would help pensioners, but only by increasing public spending. On each occasion these limp offerings were greeted with a weary look from voters who instinctively knew that we were simply playing back the lowest common denominator from our latest focus groups.

As an MP, the issues in my postbag and my surgeries have brought to life problems which at Reform we analysed academically."

Quite rightly (and unsurprisingly) he praises DD's "New Idealism" and calls for radical public sector reform, but he also praises George Osborne for "electrifying" the growing debate on flat tax. He concludes:

"There is no future for an insipid conservatism whose main doorstep message is a plea to give us a turn in office. The Conservative Party needs a purpose, and that should be to change Britain for the better. Only when we have convinced electors that we have both the ambition and the ideas to improve the lives of ordinary people will we be listened to again."

Hallelujah, brother! At last...at long last, we're on our way to the Promised Land.


PS The Reform Journal also contains an interesting piece by Trevor Kavanagh, which concludes:
"The Sun said during the election that it will consider supporting the Conservative Party only when it clearly adopts the principles of small government and low taxes."

We're nearly there Trev old son...we're nearly there.

No Comment From Pink 'Un

Reporting Ken's TV interview with Andrew Marr yesterday, the FT strangely makes no mention of Ken’s…erm, "clanger" over Bank of England independence.

Strange, because of course it's the FT’s own 1997 article that seems to contradict Ken’s assertion yesterday that he “was always in favour of an independent Bank of England”.

Instead, the FT report highlights the fact that Ken “distanced himself from the concept of a flat tax and said his party risked irrelevance if it embraced such a rightwing US idea.”

You know, I can still remember the time when the FT was the most objective analytical organ you could hope to find. If you wanted to find out what was really going on, you turned to the Pink ‘un.

These days, pink is very definitely the colour, and “rightwing” bashing is the game. I long ago cancelled my order and switched to the drier Guardian.

No wonder their UK circulation is collapsing, and they’re supporting uberEurocorporatist Ken for leader.

Shame.

More MPs Back Davis

The Times carries the following endorsement letter from six MPs:

"Sir, You say (leading article, September 16) that the forthcoming Conservative leadership contest must be “a race, not a public meeting”. We agree. While we are fortunate to have a number of highly qualified candidates we have come to the conclusion that the man with the authority, ideas and energy to do the job best is David Davis.

He has been the party’s most effective performer in recent years as Shadow Home Secretary, and in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research he has set out a compelling case for the creation of a society in which “there is a limit beneath which no man may fall, but no limit to which any man might rise”.

His personal background and time as chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee leave him well placed to tackle the greatest political issue of our time, the renewal of our public services, while his success as a businessman shows that he understands the importance of nurturing a low-tax, light- regulation economy.

RICHARD BACON(MP for Norfolk South) MICHAEL FALLON(MP for Sevenoaks) IAN LIDDELL-GRAINGER(MP for Bridgwater) TIM LOUGHTON(MP for Worthing East & Shoreham) MARK SIMMONDS(MP for Boston & Skegness) ROBERT SYMS(MP for Poole)"

This is excellent news. Richard Bacon and Michael Fallon had already indicated their support, so this takes DD's declared support among MPs to 44.

But a key point here is that the group come from right across the party. They include not only at least two who supported Michael Portillo in 2001, but also one member of the Cornerstone Group of socially conservative MPs. That's a fairly broad spectrum.

Unity under Davis.

Oooh Ken: You Are A Rascal!

On this morning's Sunday AM, Andrew Marr interviewed Ken:

Andy: "Your critics say about that you were wrong on the euro, that you were wrong on independence for the Bank of England, and that a lot of your criticisms of New Labour in the early days weren't borne out."

Ken: "The trouble with the press, with great respect to your trade Andrew, is they do tend to report each other and they do go for clichés. I will repeat that I was always in favour of an independent Bank of England - chase one of those reminiscences."

What?!

Has Ken completely forgotten what he himself wrote for the FT on 7 May 1997, the day after Gordon B made the Bank independent:

"My approach was well-known. I always listened carefully to the advice of the Bank of England. But, at the end of the day, I took my own decisions on interest rates. More often than not I was proved right.

If markets are to have confidence in a chancellor, the first condition is that the chancellor must have confidence in himself. By giving away control of one of the key levers of economic policy only days after taking office, Mr Brown has made it clear he is not ready to take on the full range of responsibilities that his predecessors have exercised.

Yesterday's unnecessary and over-hasty decision puts Britain's economic prospects at serious risk. It abandons a tried and tested approach that has delivered the best inflation performance for decades. It is a hasty decision that Mr Brown may come to regret."

Just as Ken himself may come to regret his statement to Andy M.


PS Of course, it could all just be a faulty memory circuit in the Clarke cranium. But now we've got the internet, you can't afford to forget stuff- it's always dredgeable with a few minutes on Google. For example, in trying to establish whether John Major agreed with Ken's opposition to BoE independence, I've just dredged up Ken's student dalliance with Sir Oswald Mosley, whom apparently he twice invited to speak at Cambridge. I mean...what was that all about? Other than the fact that Mosley was a fanatical Euro-federalist. And also, it turns out, the father of Max Mosley, the man who steers Formula 1, that Ken's so keen on. What's that telling us?

And I wouldn't have discovered any of that if Ken had just fessed up on Bank independence.

Davis Lead Gets Bigger

The industrious Mike Smithson has updated his excellent leadership probability chart over at Political Betting.

It shows that DD has weathered Hurricane Ken, and his lead is once again growing. As we know, the real storm damage has been suffered by David Cameron, who has now sunk right back to level pegging with the Doc.

So as things stand today, the punters put the implied probability of a Davis victory at over 60%, with Ken on around 25%, and both Cameron and Fox well below 10%.

We've said it before, but the outsiders really do now need to think of the party. We just don't need that fractious Big Brother Conference. It's down to a run-off between DD and Ken, and the other candidates should follow the principled lead of David Willetts, and decide which of the two they're going to support.

The Case For Ken

Curmudgeonly LibDem Sir Simon Jenkins sets out the case for Ken:

'If the Tory party wants to win the next election it should choose Kenneth Clarke as leader. Clarke leads his nearest rival, David Davis, in all available polls by four to one. No further brain is needed. Period.'

Naturally he doubts that we're capable of grasping his insight:

'But even Tories can do their four times table. Someone should stand over them beating them with a rubber truncheon and chanting: “Four-to-one . . . four-to-one . . . do you sincerely want to win?”

Not that he agrees with Ken's politics:

'Apart from Iraq I can think of no issue on which I agree with Clarke. He seems on another planet. He is wholly blind to the folly of a pan-European confederacy. His business career suggests a signed-up archeo-corporatist. As health secretary he created a National Health Service vulnerable to the most stupefying bureaucracy. As education secretary he tried to nationalise every school and as home secretary he wanted to run every police force. At the Treasury he was a control freak’s control freak, the emperor of audit and a walking red tape factory.'

No, Ken's sole claim to be leader is his public popularity, and we Tories must somehow learn to live with his arrogant old-style statism.

Two points Si:

1. If you read the blogs- or even the newspapers- you'd realise that those popularity polls show only that Ken would lose to Gordo by a slightly smaller margin than our alternative leader (ie DD);

2. Some of us got involved in politics because we have certain beliefs about how to improve Britain. And they do not include a return to Heathism, even if it is under a Tory PM.

The Three Davids

The plugged-in and ever thoughtful Matthew D'Ancona suggests the compelling prospect of the three Davids:

'When the history of this particular Tory leadership race is written...Mr Willetts's decision to back the Shadow Home Secretary will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the twists and turns that actually mattered.

All eyes are now on Mr Cameron, who must decide whether or not to press ahead with his candidacy...Mr Davis is speaking more warmly of Mr Cameron than ever before: as well he might. The two Davids are an impressive team. But three would be unstoppable.'

We always liked the idea of D'Ancona's "Davis Dash", which alas turned into a marathon. And for a while Davis/Cameron was our "Dream Ticket".

So despite DC's occasional dabbling in the muddy waters of Labour managerialism, we hope very much that he does as D'Ancona suggests.

The Three Davids would indeed be unstoppable, and would be a powerful union of modern Conservatism's three major strands.

It's time, guys.

One Nation Under A Groove

Another little ditty for you:

"One nation under a groove
Gettin' down just for the funk of it
One nation
And we're on the move
Nothin' can stop us now."

But contrary to widespread belief, according to ConservativeHome, "One Nation" didn't originate with that classic seventies Funkadelics album at all. They reckon it actually came from Disraeli. Gears, presumably.

One thing we do know is that pretty well all our leadership contenders are laying claim to it. Despite the fact that nobody really seems to know what it means. In fact, as a concept it seems even slipperier than one of Mr Blair's solemn pledges.

Old-time politics hack Tony Howard, writing in today's Times, confesses outright that he doesn't have a clue: "while the label remains an emotive one, it is a little difficult to know what it now signifies".

Sir Malcolm R reckons it's a "deep sense of the need for social justice and an end to poverty and inequality". But that would make Karl Marx a One Nation Tory.

Cuddly Ken defines it as 'Toryism with a social conscience combined with a free-market economy'. Which is so anodyne that it encompasses not only the entire spectrum of opinion in our own party, but also most of the Labour and LibDem parties too.

David Cameron...no, I can't go on.

In reality, "One Nation" these days is little more than a piece of code that says "I'm nice, not nasty". When it comes to claiming One Nation credentials, the Funkedelics got it absolutely right:

"Here's my chance to dance my way
out of my constrictions
Givin' you more of what you're funkin' for."

Better Step Aside

"See me comin' better step aside
A lot of men didn't and a lot of men died
I got one fist of iron and the other of steel
And if the right one don't get ya, the left one will"

Sir Malcolm must have been listening to Tennessee Ernie Ford's Greatest Hits. We can think of no other explanation for his crazed assertion in tomorrow's GMTV interview that Ken should step aside for him.

Admittedly, it sounds as if Big Ken's sidekick Wild Tim Yeo deliberately wound him up:

"I think Malcolm will pull out because of his limited parliamentary support. I would hope he would back Ken Clarke."

Mad Malc's mean snake eyes narrowed, as he swept back his beaverskin poncho to reveal the gleaming pearl handles of those notorious Pacemakers....sorry, Peacemakers. "Mister...you just insulted my mule," he croaked in a most intimidating fashion. "An' my mule don't like to be insulted."

"Yeah?"

"Yeah."

Come back next week for the next exciting episode of The Last Chance Saloon.


PS The latest odds on Betfair have Ken on 3/1 (implied probability of 25%), and Mad Malc on 64/1 (implied probability of 1.5%). So the man Malc wants to stand aside, according to the punters, has an almost twenty times greater chance of winning!

For reference, DD's odds have shortened again to 0.64/1 (implied probability of 61%). Whereas poor David C has gone right out to 13.5/1 (an implied probability of only 7%, against his pre-Ken highpoint of well over 20%).

Bruce Anderson On Loose Again

After his extraordinarily vituperative attack on DD three months ago, Brucie now lets rip at Ken:

'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. 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.

Ken’s commitment to ‘one nation’ is phrase-deep. He knows best, and the devil take democracy. If politics were merely a Punch and Judy show, he would be the ideal Mr Punch. But there is no point in having a Tory government unless it can live up to its responsibilities. Any Tory who accepts that should realise that there is no point in voting for Ken Clarke.'

Set on one side whether you agree or not. Bruce just can't help spraying it around all over the place. And while to slag off one leadership finalist may be regarded as a misfortune; to slag off both looks like self-indulgent ranting.

We feel sorry for David Cameron: getting backed by Anderson has always been a surefire harbinger of failure.

The Guts Factor

From his new station alongside DD, David Willetts swoops down on yesterday's piece by Ali Campbell castigating us for not having a real policy debate:

'What has Campbell been up to for the past few months if he hasn’t detected there is at last a real and lively debate going on?...I think of David Cameron on quality of life issues, Ken Clarke demolishing Labour’s economic record and Liam Fox passionate on human rights across the world. [Modesty clearly forbade any mention of his own excellent contributions].

Above all, on the very same day that Campbell’s article appeared, David Davis spoke to Labour’s leading think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, on the disaster of declining social mobility and how we can once more spread opportunity more widely.

[Campbell] makes another mistake too. He has wrongly assumed that our problem is exactly the same as the one that Blair and Gordon Brown faced. Their problem was that Labour hadn’t come to terms with the failure of the socialist project. Ironically, the Conservative problem is the opposite, that we haven’t come to terms with the success of our project.'

Spot on, David.

But he ends on guts:

'Campbell said of what Blair and Brown did: “It sounds easy. It wasn’t.” He is right that it is not just a matter of formulating a grand strategy, it is having the guts and determination to stick with it through the day-to-day decisions of politics. Over the past eight years the Conservative Party has had all too many strategies; some of them were even quite good. But what we have not managed to do is to stick with them and resist those powerful gravitational forces pulling you back to do the things that don’t take the party or the country in the right direction.

So we need someone who both understands what we have to do and has the authority and determination to see it through. David Davis is that man.'

This is interesting, because there are those who say that a DD leadership would follow the sad pattern set by the Hague,IDS, and Howard leaderships. He'll start out standing, proud to proclaim a radical platform encompassing the very best Conservative thinking from right across the party. But after a couple of years facing the machine guns, he'll lose his nerve and scuttle back to some sawn-off "core vote" sloganising, like "Save The Pound", or "Control Immigration", or "Lock 'Em Up".

Willetts has been in those bunkers and bears the scars. He sees in DD someone with the broken-nosed guts to withstand that pressure. Someone who will stand up at some future Conference and say "You turn if you want to..." Or have we heard that one before?

Times Calls Time On Cameron

The Times was an early backer of David Cameron, but this morning's editorial says it's time for him to follow David Willetts and withdraw from the contest:

'Mr Cameron...is a moderate and reasonable soul who has made several speeches in the past few weeks which, while sound, have not delivered messages of distinction. If the Tories are to plump for a young man who has been in the House of Commons for only four years, they have to be convinced that he is a star of the highest quality. If Mr Cameron cannot illustrate this compellingly in the coming fortnight, he would be wise to emulate Mr Willetts and depart with dignity.'

Because the Times has previously been so pro-Cameron, this is a significant statement, although in fairness, we should also note they give the same advice to Malcolm Rifkind and Liam Fox.

Their basic reasoning is something we wholeheartedly agree with:

'It is possible that the party conference early next month will take place with Mr Davis, Mr Clarke, David Cameron, Liam Fox, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Mr Leigh and perhaps Andrew Lansley and/or Theresa May claiming to be in the frame and in with a chance. This is an implausibly large number of contestants and will invite ridicule. The Tories need an election that resembles a race, not a public meeting.

For that to occur, others should be prepared to follow Mr Willetts and be realistic about their own prospects.'

Hear, hear. We do not want the Conference to be a four day Big Brother style slanging match, carried live on all those digital news channels.

Finally let's note that the Times at last seems to be warming towards DD, and offers this advice:

'It would be shrewd of him to indicate that he is open to new ideas from any quarter (Mr Willetts will be an asset again in that regard) and that he recognises that his party has to be a plausible alternative government as well as an effective opposition. In fairness to him, the thoughtful speech that he delivered on Wednesday suggests that he is capable of positioning himself cleverly if the electorate is to allow him a hearing.'

Mr D is already on the case.

Willetts: Why I'm Backing DD

In a statement this evening, David Willetts explains his decision to back DD in the context of his own excellent contributions to the modern Conservatism debate:

'I have focused on the two principles that must underpin modern Conservatism: freedom of the individual within a modern market economy and the need for us to create a strong society offering support to those in greatest need. I am pleased these ideas have received widespread support, both inside and outside the party, but I will not be a candidate for Leader.

I believe that David Davis is the right man to lead the Conservative Party. He has the experience and the authority to be an effective leader. He has demonstrated that he has the support of many senior figures representing different strands of opinion within the party. He is widely respected and he has the credibility to unite the Conservative Party once the leadership election is over.

He recognizes the scale of the task ahead of us and he has the energy and determination to lead us to victory. And, as we have seen in recent months he has the empathy, understanding and gravitas to address the challenges facing Britain and the wider world.

Consequentially, today I am announcing my support for David Davis should he confirm his intention to run for the leadership of the Conservative Party. I look forward to working with him and helping him to deliver on our joint agenda of a strong economy and a strong society and to secure a Conservative Government.'

And we look forward to what will undoubtedly be a major contribution from David W.

Unity Under Davis

Our ludicrously protracted leadership contest has by and large been conducted in a more statesmanlike manner than many feared.

But nerves are now beginning to jangle. On Sunday, Doc Fox attacked Ken for undermining the marale of our troops in Iraq. Malcolm Rifkind attacked Ken for not "coming clean" on his Euro views. And David Cameron...er, attacked Ken over both Iraq and Europe.

Hmmm...do you notice any pattern here?

Precisely. And of course it's another reason why David Willetts reported declaration for DD is so encouraging. Because if there's one thing our party needs from the new leader it's unity.

And Ken is most unlikely to deliver it, for all the reasons we know about. Indeed last week's YouGov poll reckoned 14% of party members would resign if Ken became leader.

But, as we always thought he would, DD is showing he can reach out across the party. Social reformer Two-Brains will not have made this decision lightly.

The message is that Davis can unite us; harnessing all our best talent, and taking us on to that historic victory in 2010.

Willetts To Back DD

The BBC reports that David Willetts is about to declare for DD. This would be a very important endorsement, and one we've speculated about before.

His speech to the Social Market Foundation is universally acknowledged as one of the most thought-provoking of the entire leadership "campaign", and his intellectual horse-power will be a vital ingredient in building the "Opportunity Society" we so much want to see.

Hurrah!

Prophet With Honour

"A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country."

But it seems DD is the exception. Commenting on his Opportunity Society speech, the Yorkshire Post says:

'It is imperative that the Conservatives heed Mr Davis' call for "a new Tory idealism". For Davis is not speaking solely as one of the party's most effective performers. He is also drawing on his own experience. And he realises that his party must now reach out to families living on today's council estates; families who, at present, have no empathy with the Conservatives.

If Mr Davis can effectively demonstrate how he would apply his "opportunity for all" society to those issues that matter most to voters...it may pave he way for his election, regardless of the method ultimately chosen, to follow in Churchill's footsteps and become the party's standard-bearer for a new generation.'

Churchill eh? And that's the view from God's Own Country.

What's more, if the weekend rumours are to be believed, two of Yorkshire's finest will soon be side by side as leader and shadow chancellor.

(Yes, yes, I know...DD's constituency is now designated part of NUTS Euro-administrative zone 27b, otherwise known as Humberside. But everybody knows it's really still part of Yorkshire.)

I Wonder What He Meant By That

Alastair Campbell joins the list of Labour politicos commenting on our leadership race. Oddly, this master of the black arts is one of the few to go on the record. Anyway he has great fun laying about the candidates:

'Sir Malcolm should stand in front of a mirror and ask himself: “Can I imagine myself leading the Tories to victory and becoming Prime Minister?” If he answers yes, he has breached new boundaries in out-of-touchness. Dr Fox is a reasonably handsome doctor capable of stringing sentences together without too many ums and ahs and staying on message in interviews. This skill has its place in politics but it is not sufficient to be Prime Minister. Mr Willetts, despite the Two Brains nickname, has shown no extraordinary nous or judgment.'

Do those dismissals mean Labour really fears one of them? Rifkind maybe? Hmmm...perhaps not.

David Cameron shows no evidence that he has 'thought things through, in depth and in detail, reviewing every aspect of party and policy from first principles, adapting to a changed world.'
Which leaves Ken and DD.

'At the risk of fuelling the belief that he is the man Labour fears, Mr Clarke is the one Labour should most relish getting stuck into. Clarke is lazy and prone to leave the detail to others. The laziness shows up in his speeches, made for headlines not argument. He used to infuriate No 10 at weekends in the Major years when he would disappear, watch football, enjoy a few pints, spot a few birds, and nobody could get hold of him.

Tories should also worry about his judgment....his absurd belief that he could cook up a dream ticket with John Redwood in the 1997 leadership contest...His relationship with the tobacco industry....thinking that he could redefine his lifelong position on Europe simply by stating that he had changed his mind...to announce his candidature in the Daily Mail to generate support from that quarter. The Mail is part of the Tory party’s problem, not part of its solution. The real Ken Clarke loathes the Mail. For Redwood last time, read the Mail this time.'

Quite a few inches of trashing there: does it that mean Ken really is the man Labour fears? But of course, we all know Ali is a mate of DD, so will he praise our man?

'We are left where we started before Mr Clarke entered the race, with Mr Davis the likely winner. I have a clear idea how Labour should tackle him, rooted in my firm belief that he is politically and emotionally incapable of taking the Tories to the centre ground.'

Now, is that meant to kick Davis, or help him by failing to big him up?

I'm sure of one thing- I don't think I'm cut out for the black arts.

The Opportunity Society

More details from DD's Opportunity Society speech at the ippr this morning.

'I deliberately link opportunity and welfare, because we need both, and we are more likely to get one with the other. The British people are generally fair, kind, and generous, if they are allowed to be successful individually they will be happy to save for their old age, to support their own family and to assist charities for those in need all over the world.

So the Opportunity Society will enable us to enjoy a Welfare Society. This is modern Conservatism. Not just taking Blairism and removing the objectionable elements, but changing the way we live. The state has a place, but the state must know its place. That place is not to play the role of the family, or the community, but to help individuals and families to realise their own dreams.

I don’t measure compassion by the amount of taxpayer’s money spent; I measure it by the change we make to people’s lives. Effective compassion means decentralised public services, local involvement, instinctive national solidarity in times of trouble, an extension of the power to choose.

A lifetime in business and then politics has taught me that you need to be tough to get results. But the results I want will demonstrate that the practical application of Conservative principles will benefit everyone, not just a privileged few.'

This is the Davis we need- ideals and compassion, tempered by a gritty determination to get practical results.

He fleshes out his vision with 'six practical priorities for the next Conservative Government’s strategy to strengthen our society:

• rebuild a low tax, low regulation, free enterprise economy
• strengthen the forces of law and order, to reduce the fear of crime and to punish criminals effectively
• those things which government really has to do should be done as close as practicable to local communities
• public services must be reformed by empowering individuals, widening choice, breaking monopolies, cutting back targets, and encouraging competition, so as to drive up standards
• the central role of the family in society must be recognised in both the tax and the welfare systems
• welfare dependency must be tackled anew'

Clearly much of this picks up the policy agenda developed by DD/Nick Herbert's Reform thinktank, along with the localism proposals put forward in this summer's Direct Democracy manifesto. It is the right agenda for us- classic Conservative principles applied to the issues confronting Britain today.

But the exciting thing about this speech is DD's insistence that our opportunity agenda is not something we should be ashamed of. Far from it. This is about attacking privilege and transforming the lives of our poorest and most disadvantaged citizens.

Ken "Only Electable Element"

With characteristic modesty, Ken tells the Times:

“I personally believe we are the only electable element of the Conservative Party”.

We? Yes he's including the Portillistas in his "One-Nation" tent, but specifically excluding...well, us.

And Europe?

"If the only reason I am defeated is because of Europe and because MPs and the voluntary party are fixated on Europe as a defining issue, I fear the Conservative Party will be in opposition for a very long time to come — and that fixation is a reason we have performed so badly at recent general elections."

Interestingly, elsewhere in the Times Danny Finkelstein points out that Europe has definitely not gone away as an issue: Gordon Brown can hardly wait to drive it into the heart of a Clarke led Tory party. Finkelstein- no stranger to party splits from his SDP days- concludes:

'All this is a tragedy because the attractions of Ken Clarke are obvious. The Conservative Party desperately needs a big beast, bluff, self-confident, a world statesman, as its leader. But it also desperately needs to avoid a split. It was splitting that finally did for the Liberal Party and it could do for the Tory party too.'

DD's New Tory Idealism

DD will deliver his ippr speech later today. He will say:

"I stand for new Tory idealism. I want to achieve the aims that moderate Conservatives have always championed: a strong society based on a free economy, with opportunity for all.

To achieve those aims we need the methods which have been championed by thinkers of the Right: decentralisation, less state intervention, competition and choice.

The state has a place, but the state must know its place. That place is not to play the role of the family, or the community, but to help individuals and families realise their own dreams."

Music to our ears.

But Davis will go much further than what some might characterise as classic Thatcherism. As he has before, 'he will stress his commitment to the poor, using language more often associated with the Left.'

"Perhaps shockingly for a Conservative, I want to make sure that those near the bottom of the pile can realise their dreams, not because some focus group tells me that they are a target group for my party, but because it is the right thing to do for them, and for the rest of us who live around us."

We have always felt DD's 'backstory' was much more than a useful CV for an aspiring leader. He's actually been at the bottom of that pile: his commitment to helping those still there is burned into his soul. But the key is opportunity, not dependency.

This is much more than "taking Blairism and removing the objectionable elements": it is a "new Tory idealism... changing the way we live".

We keenly await the full text.

Is Guido An Imposter?

In the absence of any real leadership news, I've whiled away a couple of hours trying to find out if the inestimable Guido Fawkes really is that bloke with the gunpowder kegs, or an imposter. Well, he started it- he put it about that I'm not Wat Tyler at all but some anonymous person who would probably have preferred to stay that way. So naturally I've been keen to return the compliment.

Turns out there's an existing trail. As everybody probably already knows, the Guardian's Backbencher ran this back in February:

'Guido Fawkes blogs on. Curiously, he shares a fax number ("Leak Secret Documents") with Paul Staines, a rightwing libertarian who used to organise acid house raves back in the early 90s. Of course, this doesn't mean that they're the same person. But readers wondering why Guido has been getting so excited about Kilroy's new party might like to know that Paul is equally open to colourful new experiences. Take this indignant article, written by a young Paul in 1991. "I have fond memories of taking LSD and pure MDMA, trance-dancing and thinking that I had turned into a pure, orgiastic wisp of smoke - it was the most staggeringly enjoyable, mind-warping experience I have ever had ... The only word to describe it is WOW!" Paul goes on to explain how much he'd like to spike the punch at a Young Conservative ball with acid, but the Backbencher will leave further investigation to Sir Ian Blair'.

Crumbs, although this doesn't mean they're the same person, it all sounds much more exciting than life chez Tyler.

And also, according to SourceWatch, Paul used to run a Bahamas based hedge fund which made 'optimal responses to the volatility caused by increasing capital and information flows across borderless financial markets in the New Economy'. It's unclear what became of the fund but it reputedly made Paul's fortune.

He also seems to be a whiz on Photoshop, as evidenced by this excellent pic he e-mailed to Tim Worstall on 17 March. Oddly, it appeared on Guido's blog the very same day.

Anyway, these days Paul runs Global Growth Org, which campaigns for 'free trade and enterprise based development', a cause to which we wholeheartedly subscibe.

I must say it's a CV that puts Tyler's in the shade. In fact I now don't mind if Guido is being impersonated. Paul Staines sounds like the kind of guy who would raise the whole tone of the place. Plus he's got a fantastically punnable surname.

Unfortunately, despite carefully comparing the pix of goateed Guido and clean-shaven Paul...are they the same person? You know, it's so very hard to tell.

What do you think?

Fatty On Fire

Serial placeman Fatty Patty has been given the run of the new-style Grauniad to trash us Tories and puff his mate Ken. A brief taster:

'The Conservative party has suffered from the consequences of democratisation in a contracting party. As membership has declined and got older, it has also increasingly reflected the views of the leader writers of the rightwing newspapers that these Conservatives read.'

'The consequences of democratisation'...from a man who was rejected by the voters in 1992, weedled his way into that grandiose colonial post out East, repeatedly refused John Major's desperate pleas for him to return to the democratic frontline, slipped into one of those Euro-sinecures, and finally schlepped off to pontificate from the High Table.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am sick to the back wossnames of being lectured by a bunch of huffy anti-democratic has-beens who reckon we are not worthy to determine the direction and leadership of our own party.

Patty should join the LibDems- if he hasn't already done so.

Polls Recap

This week will be a busy one in the leadership race, so before we move on let's recap on what those polls are telling us.

First, only Ken and DD are credible contenders. Having put down their various markers, the others should now withdraw before the Conference. The last thing we need is a week-long Big Brother style TV show featuring the Tory Party as a sackful of ferrets.

Second, Ken is no electoral magic bullet: while he's widely liked, when pitched against Brown, that wouldn't translate into Tory votes. Under either Ken or DD, as things stand the polls predict a fourth resounding defeat.

Third, while Ken may be ahead among Party members as a first round candidate, in a head-to-head run-off with DD he'd lose. And that's from polling that took place at the height of last week's media Kenfest.

And finally, we need to be very wary of allowing polls to choose our leader. Apart from all their usual problems, we are still four years away from the next real poll. We must rely on our own skill and judgement, ever-mindful of the direction in which we want our leader to lead. Only by getting that right will we deserve to return to power.

Jane Griffiths For Davis

Interesting post on ConservativeHome:

'If MPs of other parties than the Conservatives had a vote in the Tory leadership an awful lot of them would vote for David Davis. I know I would have. David Davis chaired the influential Public Accounts Committee when I was a member of it, from 1997-99, and was greatly impressive. But more impressive was his fair dealing with junior backbenchers as I was. In politics if you are kind to someone who has no advantage to offer you they never forget it - too many are arrrogant and superciilous to those they perceive as their juniors and inferiors. Not David Davis. He was even kind enough to send me a friendly note in 2000 when I saw off some difficulties I had with a neighbouring Labour MP. He is the kind of man who inspires loyalty.

Jane Griffiths
Labour MP for Reading East 1997-2005'

To which we can only say Jane sounds much better informed about the real DD than some of our own...

The Recognition Factor

The Mail On Sunday (not online- you need to go out in the rain to buy it) has a very supportive two-page profile of DD, complete with smiley colour pic of him and Mrs D.

This is a portrait of Davis the man- particularly that backstory- and of course we leadership anoraks already know most of it. But this isn't about us- it's about building wider public recognition, and articles like this will be very helpful in registering him with the people who actually have the real votes.

Yes, you might suck your teeth at a human interest headline reading 'The day my "father" told me I was illegitimate', but as the recent Ken polls have demonstrated, public recognition is vital. And we the people need to know about our leaders as people, not just grey policy-makers.

Personally, although some of you other bloggers reckon you're fed up with it, I find DD's backstory an inspiration. It's unusual and compelling, and I think it will resonate very strongly well beyond our core vote.


PS The MOS also reports that DD will offer William Hague a shadow cabinet post, maybe Shadow Chancellor. I'm sure an offer will be made, and I hope very much that Hague will accept. We need him.

More On Ken's Magic Bullet

We've already posted on today's Independent poll exposing the hollowness of Ken's supposed electoral magic. The Sunday Times carries a YouGov poll which comes to the same conclusion:

'Currently Labour has 37% support in the opinion polls with the Tories on 32%. If Clarke led the Conservatives and Brown led Labour, the margin would be 42% to 31%. The findings suggest none of the potential Conservative leaders offers their party any kind of political lifeline.'

And I'm afraid, Ladies and Gentlemen, that "none" includes Ken. Poor old bruised and battered Anthony Steen, a Tory MP since 1974, spoke for many last week when described the party as being “in the wilderness without a Moses”. And he's a Ken supporter!

So let's hear no more talk of electoral magic; instead, we must grit our teeth and make some real choices.

And- crackers though it may sound in these dark days- this very same YouGov poll points the way forward. Because it also asked what Tory policies voters might favour:

'There is strong support, even from a third of Labour voters, for a policy of committing the party to withdrawing from the European Union if there is not a transfer of power back to member states: 47% of the public support this, against 29% who oppose it.

There is also backing, by 46% to 28%, for a policy of cutting taxes and public spending. Similarly, and by 50% to 28%, voters think the Tories should propose radical reforms for the National Health Service and state education, including privatisation.

By 72% to 10%, the poll reveals that people want tax policies from the Tories aimed at helping those on middle incomes and above, rather than the less well off.'

As the ST comments, 'Clarke’s policies are out of tune with many of the findings. He has signalled that tax cuts would not be a priority and is known for his pro-European views.'

Which would be a big problem with a Ken leadership.

But of course, that won't arise, because we do have a leadership contender whose views are very much in tune with the findings. Who couldn't be better placed to exploit the growing public disenchantment with hopeless high tax, high debt, big government Labour. A disenchantment that will become even clearer once Gordo really gets his hands on those controls.

Ken Not Magic Bullet

If we are to believe the polls, quite a few party members seem to have been won over by Ken's proposition that he is our electoral magic bullet. A very compelling notion in these troubled times.

Unfortunately a poll in today's Independent puts paid to it. The poll pitched Clarke against Brown, and under the headline "Clarke would do worse than Howard", the Indie reports:

"44 per cent said Labour and 25 per cent Conservative...Clarke failed to outscore Mr Brown in any age group, trailing by 44 percentage points among 18 to 24-year-olds and doing best, only one point behind, in the 55-64 age group. Significantly, Mr Brown polled well across all social classes, including AB professionals, among whom he enjoyed an 18-point lead. These findings suggest that Mr Clarke's opposition to the Iraq war would do little to attract Labour supporters who reluctantly voted Labour or Liberal Democrat last time or who stayed at home."

Yes, I know, polls schmolls.

But that is precisely why we should not elect our leader on the basis of one or other 0.00001% sample poll that reckons it's found us a magic bullet. We're still at least four years away from the next real poll, and we must make our own judgements about the candidates.

Time And Tide

As Mr Urquhart always used to say, "The tide is everything in winning these contests; if it's with you, it will sweep you home; flowing against you, then no matter how good a swimmer you are, you'll still drown...To catch the tide, your timing has to be right...give the other contenders time to tire, for their campaigns to ship a little water and get everyone bored..."

So has Ken caught the tide? There's no doubt that since his formal declaration, he has built up some visible momentum. And his excited supporters are already writing off DD.

But we're sure Ken himself realises he's still some way behind. Even now, the bookies only put his implied probability of success at 30%, compared to DD at over 60%. And Davis has 39 MPs already declared for him, compared to Ken's 11.

Despite his energetic spurt, and all that support from his friends at the BBC, Ken himself must be concerned that he's still got a big gap to close.

Plus of course, momentum always has to be managed. We won't comment on his age, but with the finish nowhere in sight, he's already used up an awful lot of puff.

At least he's had those good polls. But then again, history tells us polls can be incredibly fickle friends in leadership elections. On 22 November 1990, a Gallop poll reckoned 37% of voters wanted Hezza to take over from Maggie, compared to just 3% for John Major. Two days later, Major was on level pegging, and three days after that he was elected.

So are we in the Davis Supporters Club downhearted? Not a jot. We reckon Ken will fall foul of Urquhart's Law:

"Get him off to a roaring start, which means that instead of a free-for-all we have a target at which everyone is going to shoot. In a couple of weeks' time, he's going to be amazed at the number of bad friends he's got within the Party, all trying to do him down. He'll be on the defensive. Fighting the tide."

Are we having fun yet?

Tyler vs Tyler

Despite what you may imagine, we Tylers are not all Tories. The West Country branch have always been Liberals, as Mrs T and I were sharply reminded over a barbeque with Teacher Brother T and his nurse wife.

After a wildly reckless intake of Shiraz Cabernet, we heard once again how we Tories are responsible for fracturing British society, nuking the NHS, grinding the faces of Gate Gourmet workers, pillaging the Third World, and now- it turns out- drowning the poor of New Orleans.

We are nasty, selfish, corrupt, unreconstructed monsters. And Labour under Tory Tone are virtually the same.

Umm...I see...another charred sausage anyone?

'And another thing- only you Tories would be stupid enough not to have Ken Clarke as your leader. '

Ah...so you like Ken?

'Well, at least he's a human being.'

So you'd vote for him?

'God no! We'd never vote Tory in a million years. You're an appalling bunch of disgusting right-wing bigoted... (cont on p78).'

Families, eh?

But at least once my extraordinarily severe headache had subsided, I realised that my bro and his wife are probably just like all those non-Tories currently opining on our leadership contest. Giving Ken the thumbs up in a poll is a very long sausage away from voting Tory.

Ken Climbs Telegraph Poll

Another good poll for Ken in this morning's Telegraph. YouGov finds his support among Tory party members has increased sharply since May.

But there's still good news for us DD supporters. Despite Ken's all-out sprint, all those polls, and the active support of the BBC, he would still lose a head-to-head with Our Man: 45% to 48%.

Indeed, the poll shows just how devisive Ken would still be as leader, despite his qualified recantation over Europe, and despite his seductive "I can make us popular again" pitch. 37% of members still think he "should definitely not be leader" (compared to 16% for DD), and fully 14% of members would leave the party if he did (2% for DD).

So it's not surprising that of the 29% who say they would vote for third candidates (Cameron, Fox or Rifkind) in a first round, fully 20% of them would switch to DD in a run-off with Ken.

This confirms what we already knew: when it comes to party unity, DD is a much safer bet than Ken.

A Week Is A Long Time...

Back from a week in blogless Devon- excellent weather, picturebook scenery, and clotted cream that can block an artery at fifty paces...strongly recommended. And once again, a big vote of thanks to the Serf for stepping into the breach here.

Scrolling through the week's news and blogs, it's clear I've missed a lot of action, with much too much to digest in one post. But some points jump out.

The first is that Ken has obviously had a very good week. Buoyed by a series of favourable polls, his odds have shortened further, standing this morning at a new low of 5/2.

One consequence- as shown in Mike Smithson's latest chart- is that Ken's implied probability of winning has moved decisively ahead of David Cameron's. He's effectively KO'd Cameron before reaching the ring, and as Peter Oborne comments, DC's 'time may come, but now is a moment for reality'. More than ever, DC must be weighing up exactly when to jump.

The second point is that DD has been biding his time while Ken puts in his mid-race surge. As others are pointing out, such a strategy is not without risks, even though this race is a marathon not a sprint. But we all know that leadership contests are tricky beasts, and momentum must be carefully managed to be effective. Judgement and a steady nerve are needed, and if we count 2003, DD has just as much experience of this as Ken. Watch this space.

Third, while Ken's popularity ratings are naturally very appealing to our bruised and battered party, his policy utterances should send a Heathite chill through our bones. We already know about Europe, which- whatever he claims- has not gone away (as Boris argued so amusingly in last week's Spectator). And his economic speech last week confirmed his "fixed pie" approach to fiscal policy.

And those poll results...as always Anthony Wells puts his finger on it:

'I always view figures like this with some scepticism - how many of those people saying they are more likely to vote Tory vote Tory anyway? How many of those people saying they would be more likely to vote Tory would actually vote Tory, or are they just using the question to express a preference for Ken? Either way, it does suggest that the idea of a Ken Clarke leadership would win more votes than the idea of a David Davis leadership. The reality of a Clarke or Davis leadership would not necessarily have the same effect.'

Indeed.

Now, I don't know about you, but I joined the Tory party because I actually hold certain truths to be self-evident- such as our pressing need to get Westminster politicians out of our public services and local government. And I am excited by the fact that we do now have a coherent policy agenda for achieving just that.

So as the Serf observed during my absence, the proposition that we should appoint as leader a cuddly Baldwinesque steady-as-she-goes throw-back is just too dismal for words.

Further posts to follow.

Where has he Been?

Peter C Glover was pointing out yesterday that DD has been keeping a very low profile and it wasn't doing his chances much good. So where has he been?

Doing his job that's where:

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "This shows that far from winning the war on drugs Labour haven't even begun to fight it.

"The fact that an ecstasy tablet can be bought for less than a can of Coke is a shocking indictment of Labour's absolute failure to tackle the scourge of drugs."

Unlike some of the candidates Davis understands that the real enemy is Labour.

Advice to Cameron

The Scotsman has a piece of advice for David Cameron that could have come from the postings on this blog.

His best chance is to decide who to support with a view to taking on the top job next time round. His best choice would be Mr Davis who is almost certain to win - he has the backing of nearly 90 MPs (even if a third won't admit it) and the support of the grassroots.

The reason according to them:

However the decision on the new leader is taken, he is practically guaranteed victory.

And:

As Mr Davis's chief backer in rebuilding the party into an electoral force in the next four years, Mr Cameron would be ideally placed to take over with a real chance of entering No 10 four years later.

Good advice I think. The addition of Cameron to Davis's backers would help to create a broad based support for our man and as such would be very positive, both for a Davis victory and a united party after the leader is chosen.

Letter to the Editor

Something I missed from the Sunday Papers, was a letter from a number of Conservative MP's.

All of the candidates for the Conservative leadership have admirable qualities. But we are convinced that David Davis is the person most likely to lead the party to victory at the next election.

We have been impressed by his contribution to the debate on the future of the party, but equally by his response to the terrorist attacks on 7/7. Since that dreadful day, he has shown that he has the qualities required for a leader: standing with the Government when the country needed a responsible and united stance against the terrorists, but ready to question forensically when the Government gets things wrong.

As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, David was the scourge of profligate spending. As shadow home secretary he has prompted two ministerial resignations and commanded the respect of the House. But he has also been at the forefront of the debate on how our party and the country must change. He has led new thinking on public service reform, localism, and the defence of our freedoms from an intrusive Government.

We believe that David's experience, coupled with a powerful personal story and appeal, makes him the natural person to lead a modern Conservative Party. Above all, he would present our most effective challenge to a Labour Party led by Gordon Brown.

David Davies (MP),
James Dudridge (MP),
Nadine Dorries (MP),
David Evennett (MP),
Nick Herbert (MP),
Philip Hollobone (MP),
David Jones (MP),
Anne Main (MP),
Mark Pritchard (MP),
Lee Scott (MP),
Shailesh Vara (MP),
Charles Walker (MP),

To which there is very little to add.

Media Backing

The Independent has an interesting article about which media outlets are backing, or will be likely to back, which candidates.

On The Daily Mail

The Daily Mail effectively launched Mr Clarke's campaign, running a friendly interview and a sympathetic full-page leader. Its fondness for Mr Clarke is, in a way, surprising. Mr Clarke is a social liberal; the Mail is socially conservative. Mr Clarke is a Europhile; the Mail is Eurosceptic. They do agree about the Iraq war. But what really brings them together is the Mail's pragmatic hunger for a winner who can lead the Tories back to power.

Why they think he has the capacity to win is of course a big question. Secondly as much as I dislike Nanny Blair and his cronys, I cannot imagine what the point is of turning the Conservative Party into New Labour Lite, in order to be able to win. Why bother.

On the others:

The other leading Tory title, The Daily Telegraph, is much less keen on Mr Clarke, to judge by a leader it ran last week. It seems very likely that the paper will support the right-wing candidate, David Davis. The Times does not like Mr Clarke much either, and will probably back David Cameron. The Sun is not keen on the anti-Iraq war Mr Clarke. The Daily Express has yet to make up its mind. The left-leaning Guardian and Independent prefer Mr Clarke, as the candidate closest to their own point of view, as does the BBC.

There you have it. The independent BBC, paid for by your TV Tax, is backing Mr Clarke because he is closer to their left wing viewpoint of the world.

Who's Popular

The BBC is ratcheting up its Kenneth Clarke campaign with a poll to see who ordinary voters would prefer as Conservative Party leader.

Of those questioned, 40% said Mr Clarke would make the best leader, compared with 10% for David Davis and 4% for David Cameron and Malcolm Rifkind.

To which we can only say, recognition factor. The average man on the street doesn't have a clue who most of the candidates even are, but thanks to the BBC's continuous campaigning for him and his media image, Mr Clarke is well known by all.

Familiarity will come with the territory, whoever wins wil become widely known in a short space of time.

What I would really like to see from a poll is which policies the voters would prefer from a Conservative Government. Then match the policies to the candidates.

What the party needs is someone who can take it forward, not a candidate that will make us the third major Europhile Social Democratic Party.

Davis Against Rule Changes

DD has spoken out against the change of rules for leader selection.

Tory leadership hopeful David Davis has criticised plans to deny ordinary party members a say in who gets the top job.

Previously he had said that as a candidate, questioning the rules could be seen as self serving. Perhaps the fact that the proposals look like being defeated has changed things. Now he says:

"I think the new proposal to do away with the rights of the membership is likely to be turned down - I don't think that's a bad thing"

Repeating and idea he had raised earlier, he proposed reversing the process.

"I think it would have been much easier just to say to the party in the country: 'Why don't we reverse the order - you have the first hit and MPs have the last say'.

I know Wat prefers the current system, but this idea seems to be very pragmatic. Neither side ends up with a leader that they cannot work with or for.

Putting the Party First

With the entrance into the race of a certain cigar puffing ex government minister, it is a good moment for Conservatives to consider which of the candidates has any interest in the good of the party.

A candidate who boasts that he is the only Conservative that can beat Blair and Brown at the dispatch box and yet refuses to use his talents under any leader but himself, is not to be believed when he talks about the good of the party.

DD on the other hand, can be proud of the sacrifice he made prior to the last election, to save the party from a damaging election less than two years before the general election.

Davis’s sacrifice was huge because he stood a really good chance of winning. Instead all he got were accolades for sparing the party a divisive ballot.

At the time, there were those in the party who were upset at the percieved coup. They should remember that Davis's could have gone on to win any contest at that point but prefered to help the party in its hour of need.

Another Reason

In another demonstration of why the party should reject Clarke, he has gained another high profile supporter.

Lord Patten has backed Kenneth Clarke in the Conservative leadership race and urged party members to give their support to the former Chancellor.

The man whose career highlights include a stint at the Brussels gravy train and handing over Hong Kong to China is not a man from whom we wish to take advice.

It seems that the party's past is supporting Clarke. We have yet to hear much from the new intake of MPs, but my bets are that the party's future will back Davis.

Winning Both Ways

It is largely believed that if the membership of the party manages to keep its right to vote, then Davis will win. So the focus of the contest over the last week has been the story of the peasant’s rebellion.

There are signs however that Davis will be crowned leader irrespective of the method.

In the poll of more than 100 Tory MPs carried out by The Sunday Times, David Davis came top with 28 votes. Liam Fox, who last night announced his intention to stand, was second with 10, David Cameron third with nine and Clarke fourth with eight. Fifty other MPs said they were undecided or declined to comment.

Not a case of proven beyond reasonable doubt I’m sure, but there is certainly a mountain to climb for his opponents.

Repeat: Tyler Not DD

Today's Guardian editorial comments on our struggle against the barons:

'There is talk, or maybe spin, of a growing "peasants' revolt" against the changes - with Mr Davis in the role of Wat Tyler.'

As desperate attention seekers we're naturally delighted. But we should repeat what we've said before. We're not David Davis, and we're not under his direction. We're just ordinary party members who want him as leader, and blogging is just about all we can do to help bring it about.

We say this because we are fully aware of our manifold shortcomings in the decorum department. We do try, but sometimes we get so overwrought that we say things about DD's rivals that he'd never countenance.

We are solely responsible. Not our future leader.

Not In Our Name, Buster

The Chairman is warning of disaster unless the party Convention accepts his changes to the leadership voting rules.

Clearly very rattled by we revolting peasants, he claims:

"I cannot emphasise too strongly that no one would have gone down this path unless there was pretty strong evidence that this was what the voluntary party wanted. It is not a case of us trying to hijack it."

What!!!

What "evidence" is he talking about? In case he hadn't realised, modern democratic parties collect their evidence through the ballot box, not over a couple of brandies at the Carlton Club.


PS The Telegraph leader is good value:

'Conservative Party members are not so corrupted and worn down by the culture of shabby compromise that informs daily life at Westminster as to abandon their core beliefs for the sake of appearances or expediency. They are principled and consistent, loyal and unforgiving. In other words they, rather than the jostling careerists who represent so many of them, are the true Conservatives, and the choice of their leader must in some measure reside with them.'

Chairman M Heading For the Stake

Hurrah! It looks like the Peasants Revolt is going to win through against the Party barons who tried to rob us of our leadership votes.

Of course, the majority of our MPs went along with the deal, but now they can see the strength of peasant opposition, they're starting to run scared. And they're looking for a scapegoat. According to Peter Oborne:

'The anger felt by many Tory MPs has been greatly increased by a growing view that Francis Maude, the party chairman, is railroading the rule changes through in a secretive and possibly illegal way.'

It's as good as done: poor old M is heading for the stake, along with Comrade Monbiot.

They're already piling up the faggots outside the Winter Gardens.

Maggie On Ken

It was twenty years ago today (give or take) that Maggie appointed Ken to his first Cabinet post. He'd already been an MP for fifteen years and was fully six years older than David Cameron is now.

Obviously he and Maggie were some way apart politically, but after six years of government she did eventually recognise his ability. In The Downing Street Years she wrote (in a polite echo of LBJ's famous remark):

'There are some people that it is better to bring in because they would cause more trouble outside. Peter Walker and Ken Clarke are examples.'

In 1988, keen to press on with her NHS reforms, and slightly despairing of her protege, John Moore, she made Ken Health Secretary. She obviously had some doubts because:

'As he was to demonstrate during the short period in which he was my Secretary of State for Education (when he publicly discounted my advocacy of education vouchers), Ken was a firm believer in state provision.'

But she saw in Ken 'an energetic and persuasive bruiser', exactly what she needed to take on the BMA and the entrenched legions of the NHS:

'Ken Clarke was the best possible advocate we could have. Not being a right-winger himself, he was unlikely to talk the kind of free-market language which might alarm the general public and play into the hands of the trade unions. But he had the energy and enthusiasm to argue, explain and defend what we were doing night after night on television.'

Which seems spot on in terms of Ken's strengths. She had devised the strategy (including all the various innovations like trust hospitals, that these days Ken implies were his idea). But she was pushing the programme forward using one of the best briefs in the business.

Of course, Maggie also saw weaknesses, quite apart from their philosophical differences:

'What I was less convinced about, however, was whether Ken and the DH had really thought through the detailed implementation of what we were doing and foreseen the transitional difficulties as we moved from one system to another.'

In fact she was very concerned about it.

Again, that sounds spot on. Ken comes over as very much a big picture arm waving kind of guy. Not a man you'd expect to get involved in too much tedious detail, particularly on such mind-deadening stuff as restructuring bureaucracies.

So what did she think about him as a future leader? She set out a list of seven possibles from her next generation, two of whom- Major and Howard- did subsequently get a turn.

Of the remainder, the only one still standing is Ken. All the others have sensibly recognised their time has passed and hung up their dancing clogs.

"Old Commies for Ken"

The Blithering One is unable to restrain himself any more, and has posted on Once More. He is...what should we say...a little sceptical of the lefties' support for Ken:

'It's set-up, anyway. Once Ken became leader, the Beeb and the Guardianistas would blow him apart on his tobacco company links, and the Tories would go down in flames. Clarke's image will mysteriously change from "cuddly witty jazz-man" to "fat-cat serial-company-director cancer-causing throwback buffoon who enacted vicious right-wing policies in the early 90's". (And the right-wing press will attack him more than ever over the issue of the EU.)'

Sounds about right.

Work-Life Balance

Poignant news from the DC camp:

'David Cameron, the shadow education secretary whose nascent campaign is most at risk from the Clarke candidacy, is breaking his holiday today to deliver a speech on work-life balance.'

Wonder what the missus thinks.

The Popularity Factor

An important part of Ken's pitch is that his personal popularity will attract loads of votes from people who don't currently support us.

The excellent Anthony Wells draws on his encyclopedic knowledge of opinion polls to examine this claim. Briefly, he finds that 'Ken has been the public’s choice for Conservative party leader for the last ten years, for what little good it’s done him' . He reckons this is probably 'down to a mixture of three factors: recognition, ideological stance, and genuine likeability'. He thinks DD is now getting more recognised, although:

'Ken Clarke is still head and shoulders above other candidates in terms of recognition - last month Populus asked people to name various Tory politicians from photographs - only 6% could name David Cameron, only 27% could name David Davis and even Ken Clarke was only named by 50% of respondents.'

But of course the key question is whether such recognition and blokish likeability would actually translate into votes. Wells says:

'I have only been able to find one poll that actually asked voting intention, and then asked it a second time, imagining that Ken Clarke was leader - it was carried out by YouGov in February 2003. Normal voting intention was CON 32%, LAB 37%. If Ken Clarke was leader, people said they would vote CON 30%, LAB 37% - in other words, Ken’s imaginary leadership lost support.'

Just read that again to make sure it's sunk in: 'Ken's imaginary leadership lost support.'

Why might that be? Wells points to two factors. First, his age:

'No pollster has asked “Is Ken Clarke too old?” - the closest we have is a Populus poll from last month, which asked which characteristics people thought were desirable or undesirable in a new leader. The characteristic that elicited the most negative response, by some distance, was for a candidate to be in their mid-60s. Ken Clarke is 65.'

Second, his Europhilia. We obviously need a post-recantation poll, but 'back in 2001 ICM found that 69% of Tory voters thought that a Clarke leadership would split the party over the Euro.'

So- one more time- 'Ken's imaginary leadership lost support'.

Very interesting, no?

PS During his interviews yesterday, Ken reckoned age wasn't an issue, that there are many leading politicians older than him and still firing on all wossnames. I've been trying to find out who they are. Despite wide-ranging research, so far I've only got Robert Mugabe (81) and Fidel Castro (78).