David Davis for leader

Moving On

2005-12-06T15:05:00.000Z

Naturally we’re disappointed, but we’ll fully support David Cameron as our new leader. Loyalty is right and proper, and unless we can manage it, our party will never return to government. DC has won fair and square, and while we may challenge his policies, we will support the man.

So congratulations to him, and commiserations to DD.

Now we must move on. There's a mountain to climb, but if we are bold and work together, then whatever the doomsters say, we really can win in 2009. Or more likely, 2010, as disintegrating Labour clings on to the bitter end.

But it wouldn't be right if we losers didn't reflect on what we can learn from defeat. First, even in the telly age leaders just have to make good platform speeches. Right at the start we recognised this was a potential issue for DD, but set against his strengths we didn’t think it would be a showstopper. And without DC’s noteless tour de force it might not have been.

Second, excellent media relationships are not some optional bolt-on extra, but the very essence of modern campaigning. DC got a huge boost from that egregious Newsnight focus group, and the media spin on subsequent Conference speeches. But while we can complain about the Old Chums Connection, in reality it’s like complaining about the weather. You just have to deal with it- which DC has.

So we’ve learned- or perhaps more accurately, fully understood- that presentation and media management are absolutely vital. Let’s all hope that the skills which have been so effectively deployed in our leadership campaign can now be used to return the party to power.

We’ve also encountered something rather less comfortable. It’s whether Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral politics are at all suited to serious policy debate.

Because beyond a few totemic issues like Europe, it really does look as if all parties must crowd onto that sacred centre ground, all laying claim to the same current consensus. They can follow the consensus, but it’s unrealistic to expect them to lead. Which means that real policy change must be pursued outside the formal electoral arena.

We strongly believe in the Davis vision of “Opportunity Britain”- his agenda for boosting prosperity through lower taxes and deregulation, and tackling Britain’s social problems through radical public service reform and localism. He summarised it as using “traditional right-wing tools to achieve traditional left-wing objectives”. Despite our defeat, we will do what we can to see that agenda adopted by our new leader.

So good luck to David Cameron and his new team, and we hope to hear from you all at Burning Our Money (now with added blue Tory rosette!).

DDFL Wins Another Top Award

2005-12-05T20:49:00.000Z

Following hot on the heels of our success at the Daily Telegraph Jackhammer Awards, DDFL has won ConservativeHome's prestigious Blogger Award.

To say we are tickled pale blue is an understatement...and to have beaten that ruffian Guido Fawkes as well!

Mrs T is so thrilled she's decided we need a whole new mantelpiece to accomodate the statuette. Her chosen model is shown above. It's called the Cameron. In tasteful Crema Marfil.

All-New Burning Our Money

2005-12-05T18:35:00.000Z

And now, the end is near, and so DDFL faces the final curtain (well, in a couple of days anyway). Regrets, we've had a few...

But no more for that. No talk of wakes til we've actually heard the result.

On the day when Gordo finally fessed up to his egregious crimes against sound finance, the real news is that we're resuscitating Burning Our Money (Blogger version). Its mission- to boldly go into that giant conflagration of grandiosity, waste, and pork barrelling that is public spending. And to expose the schemers and dreamers responsible.

For is it not written:

"BRITAIN’S BIG GOVERNMENT POLITICOS spend 42% of our income, yet fail to deliver decent services. They promise prosperity, yet tax and regulate our economy into stasis. They talk up social justice, yet consign millions to welfare dependency.

Enough is enough. We the peasants demand our high-spending, high-living, irretrievably conflicted politicos come to heel."

With any luck we might even unearth some solutions.

And we'll certainly be pressing our new Party leadership to give the whole issue the priority it demands. We'll praise them when they do, and offer helpful commentary if they don't. Because unless we Tories take action, nobody will.

The first new post is on today's fiscal turning point. Hope to hear from you there.

Wat

Spin Kite Leak

2005-12-05T11:47:00.000Z

Looks like DC's spinmeisters may have over-reached themselves yesterday with that story about DD's forthcoming "humiliation".

Today we get a "clarification" from Camp Cameron. "A spokesman" now says:

"David Cameron very strongly disapproves of these backstage briefings. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that we have to get away from in modern politics. We do not even know if we have won yet. This has not come from us. What is in the Sunday papers is completely unauthorised."

The suggestion we are now fed is that it was all a bit of kite flying from Camp Doc, who naturally hate DD because he's from their own wing of the Party. Of course, DC's spokesman doesn't actually deny the story. He just wants to say that if it did come from Camp DC, it's a leak and definitely not spin. Because everybody knows DC doesn't spin.

But come on guys. We're not complete fools out here. We know all about spin-kite leaks. And deniability.

And most of all, we know about the foetid incestuous bond between politicos and the media that mires our politics in the oozing slime of....

Gaaaah! It must be time for my medication.

The Greasy Pole

2005-12-04T10:42:00.000Z

The Sunday Telegraph reports frenetic activity around DC's greasy pole. Naturally much of it is self-promotion. But plenty of energy is also being directed at doing down DD. According to anonymous well-wishers:

'David Cameron...plans to "humiliate" his rival, David Davis, by demoting him. Mr Cameron is planning to strip Mr Davis of his job as shadow home secretary and award the post to Liam Fox... Mr Davis will be offered the lesser post of shadow defence secretary and told it is "a job he cannot refuse".

A Cameron ally said yesterday: "Davis's reputation has fallen dramatically. There is no question in our minds that the leader of the Right is now Liam Fox."

In a cooing profile of DC, the S Times expands:

'Davis...has seen his status slip from “SAS hero to middle-management zero” in the space of a few months, joked one of the left of the party last week.

Shadow defence secretary...may not be a top job, as one Cameron adviser said, but it is “bloody hard to turn down”.“Davis needs to be kept in check by being offered a decent, relatively senior job,” explained another.'

So far, so predictable- none of us really expects too much in terms of magnanimity from our ever-lovin' MPs.

But much more concerning is how DC's supporters would apparently interpret the broader significance of victory:

'For the “Cameroons” it is not so much the beating of the man (DD) that is important but the fact they have beaten his politics. If this is the case, some radicals ask, why not banish him to the back benches? What better way of signalling that the Conservative party is on the road to reform?'

Now just a cotton pickin' minute there. If you DC supporters really think you've won the policy battle, you're in for some serious disappointment. As the ST points out:

'The Davis question is made all the more significant by the fact that Cameron has not necessarily won the hearts of party members but has successfully appealed to their heads by demonstrating his strength among the electorate.

Smart, metropolitan and at ease with modern Britain, the Cameroons have effectively been saying to the blue-rinsed Tory grass roots: “You may not fully understand or even agree with everything we say, but we can win.”

Having had my own blue rinse touched up only this week, I'm well placed to underline that comment. Cameron's proffered usp is that his charm, his noteless speeches, his charisma can get us elected. Not that he will rewrite all our policy beliefs.

And what better way of indicating good faith than to offer Davis a senior post. Just as Davis would for him.

Precisely What We Were Worried About...

2005-12-03T11:13:00.000Z

The FT has an worrying interview with George Osborne, DC's campaign manager. George- now widely tipped to retain the Treasury brief- is attempting to talk down expectations for DC's first 100 days:

“Anyone expecting a miracle on day one, and a complete turnaround in the political environment which has existed in this country for 10 years, and suddenly we’re going to be 20 points ahead in the polls, I think is going to be disappointed. I think this is going to be a long hard slog.”

Long hard slog? We thought DC's claim to our leadership rested on the sales proposition that he could replace bloody trench warfare with a brilliant Blitzkrieg campaign of movement and optimism. He's never mentioned a long hard slog.

But it's a little late now- for us members the expectations hurdle for a DC leadership remains a 10 percentage point uplift in our poll rating- just like Tony delivered. After all that hype, anything less, sadly, would be seen as failure.

More concerning still, are George's comments about fiscal policy:

“The whole point about [sharing the proceeds of growth] is that it shows that they’re both important, that you don’t have to choose one over the other, that investing in public services and reducing taxes are both necessary for economic prosperity.”

He believes taxation is too high, but also warns there could be little or no scope for tax cuts if the Tories regained power. “If there’s a problem with the economy then the country can’t afford tax cuts.”

So don't hold your breath.

Does he at least still agree with Mr Cameron’s assessment that the flat tax is an “exciting idea”?

“It’s an exciting idea but that doesn’t mean it can necessarily work in a mature tax system. We have to be fiscally responsible and we have to introduce a tax reform that works.”

Well, yes. Nobody is going to argue with the last bit. But I reckon George is going to discover that finding tax reforms that "work" is rather easier said than done. There are always trade-offs- winners, losers, and all sorts of unknowns. All we can really ask of our political leaders is that they have the right instincts.

And of course, the guts to take action.

Comeback King

2005-12-02T08:57:00.000Z

It's set to be the biggest comeback since Elvis played Tranquility Base. The media are against him, the bookies are against him, and whole swathes of West London are against him.

But as Blogger For Davis James Hellyer reports, the man himself hasn't thrown in the towel. Standing toe to toe with DC in a frozen cattle pen way, way out West, DD obviously is still a hunk a hunk of burnin' conviction. As James says:

"My impression of the evening was that Davis was far stronger on policy issues, and on explaining how policies work, while Cameron was more skilled and easy in stage presentation. In the end the choice appears to come down to one between a man who knows what he wants and explain to us how he intends to get it, and a man who is more in touch with image led politics, but is far more vague about what he intends to do and how he intends to do it."

It's the King vs Alvin Stardust.

Last Chance

2005-12-01T09:36:00.000Z

Today is the last chance for posting ballot papers. The last chance for choosing substance and experience over style and fingers-crossed.

We can all see the odds are heavily stacked against DD, but we are the members and it is still in our hands.

Even if he does not win, it is important that he polls well. We may not be invited to those North Kensington pasta parties, but attendees need to understand we do have a voice. The very worst thing for the Party would be a Year Zero reinvention, junking all those timeless Tory principles most of us still hold very dear.

The time to make ourselves heard is NOW.

The Party That Likes To Say Yes!

2005-11-30T15:25:00.000Z

Do you remember TSB- "The Bank That Likes To Say Yes!" (1mb TV ad download here).

The SDP's Danny Finkelstein reckons the Tory Party should copy it. And he makes DC our yes-man, pitched against DD's no-man, a case spun from that Sky hustings exchange:

DD: "We have a situation where the centre of many cities and towns in this country are no-go areas for decent people.”
DC: “We must not make everyone who wants to go out and have a drink on a Friday and Saturday night sound like a criminal.”

The moment I heard this I recognised the debate the two were having. Should the Conservative Party paint the skies blue or should they paint them black?"

You can guess which side Fink comes down on, but just in case we don't get it, he spells it out:

"The reason that optimism is a superior political position to pessimism is really quite simple — association. Why do you think car companies advertise their products with attractive women? It makes their cars seem sexy."

Simple as that huh?

And what happens when you might actually have to say "no"? Or won't that ever happen?

PS For those interested in these things, 'the TSB movement was started in 1810 by the Reverend Henry Duncan in the small Scottish village of Ruthwell to improve the financial position of what were then termed the "labouring classes". For the next 175 years it ran a very conservative and successful operation. Unfortunately, after it floated in the go-go 80s, their board got carried away with a whole load of frothy ideas driven by management consultants and admen. Like saying yes to everything. It didn't really work, and in 1995 the whole wobbly shebang was gobbled up by Lloyds. Most of the branches then got turned into bars or worse; the picture shows all that's left of the flagship branch in Newcastle- probably after a 24 hour drinking binge.

Not that anything like that could happen to our Party.
No.
Definitely not.

All-New Fantasy Cabinet

2005-11-29T21:19:00.000Z

It's a game we've all played many times before, but over at ConservativeHome it's in full swing once again. Just how should DD balance his shadow cabinet?

The first and most important thing will be to re-establish unity. After our prolonged and sometimes difficult contest, Davis must reach out right across the Party, and particularly to the disappointed supporters of David Cameron.

There will be no place for petty vindictiveness, or settling of old scores, or cronyism. As DD has said many times, his will be a cabinet of all the talents. And quite right too.

So William Hague for Shadow Chancellor- everyone's choice, if he can afford it. And Liam Fox to stay as Shadow Foreign Secretary. Certainly.

But the real question will be what to do with DC himself. We believe it is essential he be given one of the very top jobs, and accorded all the respect that decency and good sense demand for the runner-up. He would make an excellent Shadow Home Secretary, a post which should be combined with the Deputy Leadership.

Of course there will be those that say he should be punished for saying challenging things about DD. And for having supporters who have taken things too far. But we say Davis is a bigger man than that. He is a real leader, and a real leader thrives on robust debate.

After all, if the positions were reversed, do we really believe DC would behave any less well?

Bigtime Punter Backs Davis

2005-11-29T18:19:00.000Z

According the the Evening Standard, major league punter and Tory backer Stuart Wheeler has endorsed DD:

“I think that Davis would have the toughness to maintain discipline in the Party and I think he would take a harder line on Europe and I welcome his keenness to revive the economy through lower taxes.”

All of which we naturally agree with.

But more interesting is how much he'll win when DD is elected.

Think about it. DD is now 33/1- fantastic odds that Mr W could surely not ignore. And being the sporting gent he is, he wouldn't want to be outdone by that 200 grand bet on DC. So let's say he matches it.

£200,000 times 33...why, that's nearly seven big ones. Payable next Tuesday.

Let's hope he donates some to the Party.

Platitudes Vs Policy

2005-11-28T17:10:00.000Z

On R4 Today this morning, John Humphrys almost used the Tyler Opposites Test on DC- would anyone seriously argue the opposite to anything he said?

Anatole Kaletsky picks up the same point. He has had private discussions with both leadership candidates, and says of DC:

'Consider the statement ....that David Cameron has repeated almost verbatim in his campaign speeches and public debates: ... the promise to “share fairly the fruits of economic growth between lower taxes and strengthened public services”... If such platitudinous ambiguities were really the essence of the New Tory credo, the rejuvenated party would find itself supporting not just Tony Blair, but also Gordon Brown, in almost everything they did or said.'

Kaletsky contrasts this to the Davis approach:

'The Davis position on tax and spending ...comes up with commitments that are much more clear-cut...the steady build-up of 1 per cent economies would allow Davis to deliver his promise of a tax cut of roughly equivalent to 4 per cent of GDP, or £40 billion, at the end of a four-year parliament. ...waste, inefficiency and over-manning are rife in the public sector and if government productivity could only be raised to levels that are taken for granted in private industry, achieving a target of 1 per cent savings each year should not be impossible, even while services are improved. This is an attractive argument, but one which has been made by every opposition politician in every country in every age.'

Which is fair comment. But with Davis, we know what the priorities would be, and we know how he would seek to deliver. With Cameron, neither we nor Kaletsky have any idea.

Gordo Apes Davis

2005-11-27T10:39:00.001Z

According to the authoritative David Smith, Gordo is preparing for a DD-led Tory Party by aping his "Growth Rule". As you know, this is DD's strategy for limiting the growth of public spending below the growth of the economy, thereby clearing the way for tax cuts. Smith says:

"In his pre-budget report Brown will announce that spending by government departments will rise by 1.9% a year in real terms over the period 2008-9 to 2010-11, below the economy’s long-run growth rate which is estimated by the Treasury to be 2.75%."

Obviously, Gordo's version of the Rule is a pale imitation with about as much credibility as his pledges to raise productivity growth or to abolish unhappiness. But it sounds like he's already running scared.

Roll on 6 December.

Early Test For Rehab Policy

2005-11-26T09:44:00.000Z

"I believe that the rehabilitation of prisoners is one of the most important things we can do to reduce crime in this country. A serious-minded approach to re-introducing prisoners into mainstream work and life after prison is also required if we are to make any dent in the appalling figures for re-offending from which we suffer at present."

So says the caring sharing Mr Cameron.

And if he wins, he'll get a splendid opportunity to put his beliefs into practice straight away. Because ex-con Lord Archer has applied for his old job back. He's paid his dues, and in DC's world it's only right he be given a chance to resume mainstream work and life after prison.

On such an important issue, we're confident DC would eschew any nimbyism or "don't do as I do, do as I sayism" and welcome his Lordship back into the Tory fold.

PS For those who've forgotten DD's pledge to "build the prisons to put them away and keep them off our streets", it's here.

The Amnesial Airbrush

2005-11-25T10:52:00.000Z

What are we to make of DC's selective amnesia? Yesterday during the Sky hustings he reckoned he "couldn't remember" how he had voted in Parliament on gay adoption. The facts of course are that, although he's now in favour, he twice voted against- on 16th May 2002 (Division 244) and four days later (Division 246).

So what's going on? Over on ConservativeHome posters are calling him a liar, and worse. Here on DDFL we always like to think the best of fellow Tories, so naturally we shy away from such talk.

But if not a liar than what?

Perhaps he genuinely forgot. A Blunkett moment. But then again, this isn't exactly the Schleswig-Holstein Question, and if he forgot this, what else might he have forgotten? Samantha's birthday? A sieve is surely not what we had in mind as leader.

So what then?

We really don't need to look far because it's been put up in lights for us. A "Change To Win" Cameron Tory Party would start at Year Zero. Everything- from gay adoption to those timeless Tory principles- would be subject to change and reversal.

And inconvenient historic artefacts? Well, expect to see much more of that amnesial airbrush.

PS Clive Davis picks up another issue from the Sky hustings- the exchange beween DD and DC over 24 hour drinking. DD said "We have a situation where the centres of many towns and cities in this country are no-go areas for decent people...We have to recognise that, and recognise that what the Government is doing today is actually making that much worse." To which DC's reponse was "When you say 'no-go areas for decent people' you are almost implying that anyone who does go out is not a decent person. You have got to be very, very careful, David. That's something the Conservative Party has got to understand. We have to show we understand people's aspirations and not sound all the time as if we are preaching to people." "Aspirations"- a particularly weasely word, as Clive explains.

Still In Our Hands

2005-11-25T07:57:00.000Z

With the Sun and the Telegraph both today declaring for DC, we Tories must stand firm.

Because as we've said many times before, the media are never more than fair weather friends. And they like to back the side they think is going to win.

Take the Sun's DC endorsement:

'Nobody is entirely sure where he stands on issues like taxation.

On the vital issue of Brussels, he seems to be clear: Britain must not surrender an ounce more sovereignty to the EU. It remains to be seen if he has the balls to turn those words into action.
But despite these reservations, we like what we see...

He looks good on TV and he has the rare gift as a Tory of making voters feel good about life. These may seem superficial qualities. But they are essential in an age when the medium is the message.

...A raw beginner with a sprinkle of stardust. '

Pretty encouraging stuff, you might think. But just remember- supporting DC for the leadership is not the same as supporting the Tories against Labour. Compare and contrast their well-known position on that:

"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."

Yes, we know all about the circulation imperative and those rumoured media deals, but in a close race- as the next Election will be- the Kavanagh/Steltzer Sun will guided by conviction and commitment. Not stardust.

As will the electorate, an uncomfortable fact underlined today's YouGov poll. Yes, we are now only 2 points behind Blair-led Labour, amid much talk of the wheels coming off. Which is excellent.

But in that all-important contest with Brown-led Labour, we're still miles behind. Even Stardust Cameron trails Gordo by 46% to 37%.

Sadly, there is no quick fix media froth solution to our real difficulties. It will be a long-hard road where those round objects will be an absolute requirement.

Tylers Vote

2005-11-24T12:11:00.000Z

Following the hustings Mrs T and I have voted.

After due consideration, my vote has gone to DD. I have to say I'm less sure about Mrs T. Despite my express instructions that she was to show me her completed ballot paper, she stuffed it into the envelope before I could see.

Modern marriage is all very well, but I do wish wives would understand their limits. They'll be wanting to have more women MPs next.

Frimley Shimmy

2005-11-23T16:27:00.000Z

Mrs T and I attended the Frimley hustings today (my full, totally objective report is on ConservativeHome).

It was a gentle gentlemanly affair, thoroughly appreciated by attendees, but probably doing little to sway members from their prior views. The two Davids have been spending so much time together, they're now finishing each other's jokes.

The one point of real interest was DC's apparent shimmy on withdrawal from the EPP. As noted yesterday, DC's position had been that we would withdraw virtually as soon as he became leader, despite the obvious pitfalls in such an abrupt move.

Well, this morning he shifted his position. While he's still in favour of withdrawal, the "timing" of any decision would now be a matter for the new Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Perhaps not a huge thing in itself (although the likes of Mr Cash may not agree), but it is one more example of DC sort of...hmm, making it up as he goes along.

Now, where've we come across that before?

Bloggers For Davis 39

2005-11-22T15:03:00.000Z

Mark Adams has an excellent post at Outside Story about leaving the EPP. He contrasts DC's opportunistic commitment to withdraw immediately with DD's more measured approach:

"DC is a past-master of unpopular policies that look opportunistic. In fact he has promised to execute one as his first act if elected leader. The policy is leaving the EPP in his first week as leader. It is he has done with Daniel Hannan and Bill Cash.

Leaving the EPP is...getting out of a federalist party that supports the left/right consensus that is bogging down Europe... We want to be a part of an Atlanticist, pro-market coalition that includes the parties of Eastern Europe and even parties like the German FDP. In fact we want to lead such a party.

Leaving the EPP in the first week would squander that opportunity. Cameron wants to get out but he has nowhere to go. There is no coalition waiting for us. We would be isolated in Europe. Creating a party for us to lead could put the Conservative’s at the head of the third largest coalition in Europe. Isolating ourselves would make us a non-entity...

David Davis... would listen to the Euro MPs... about who we can work with. He would use their advice and turn it into a plan. Then he would let them vote on the plan. There would be no rebellion against an imposed move. There would be no talk of opportunism. He would take us out of the EPP but he would do it right.

That is where Davis’s experience will save us an embarrassment. More importantly it is where he would succeed in not looking opportunistic because his positions are based on principle, not PR. That is his strength and Cameron’s weakness. If Conservative members cannot see this by December 5 th then they will see it in Cameron’s first week as leader. That, unfortunately, would be too late."

The Day Of The Jackaroo

2005-11-22T13:46:00.000Z

One man with a PR department who can change the course of history.

Or...umm, can he?

Maggie's favourite author Freddie Forsyth is worried that DC won't be up to the job:

"Whoever takes over the Conservative Party is going to have to take on New Labour's attack dogs and they are provenly vicious. And Paris and Brussels over EU reform and they are ruthless. And the vested interests who live off all our backs and they are devious and
unscrupulous.

So that is the real choice. I plump for the man who has been there for 20 years. Occupied five senior offices. Been round the block a few times. Taken hardship, opposition and tough times and beaten them all. It's the tested fighter or the beaming Tory Boy.

Just put it this way: if you were in an alley late at night, with two yobs bearing down, which one would you prefer beside you? Ah, you say, politics are not like that. Oh yes they are, chum, oh yes they are."

And that wild Sunday Telegraph article about the Treasury's secret Cameron dossier will be just the start.

"Flogging A Dead Horse"

2005-11-21T12:49:00.000Z

Despite the bookies, and despite the gleeful sneers of DC supporters, there's still time for us members to choose DD.

Because it seems this race is running very differently to 2001, with less than half of ballot papers so far returned. And nobody actually knows how the votes are splitting.

So we're looking forward to our local hustings on Wednesday, where we will be taking the temperature of some real members well outside the metrobubble.

PS I'll be reporting the Frimley hustings for ConservativeHome. And as I've already told Tim, my strategy will be objective reporting. Although that cannot be a guarantee, or even a promise.

Body Talk

2005-11-20T17:18:00.000Z

There was of course one interesting bit in today's TV hustings. This was right at the start when the candidates walked on, and DC tried to execute a two-handed power handshake on DD. Generally not a great idea: to quote body language expert Allan Pease:

"It is quite common to see politicians greeting voters and sales people meeting their new customers with a double-handed hand shake without realising that this can be social suicide, putting the receiver offside."

Of course, given DC's meticulous staging, it's quite likely that he was trying to put DD "offside" in order to unsettle him. But the problem with too much body language artifice is that it can so easily backfire.

Today's Sunday Times Appointments section (not apparently online) also unpicks DC's over-rehearsed body language. Top management trainer Jo Ouston watched the QT hustings and comments:

“All we get is stage presence. How are we meant to make any judgment on this basis? It would have paid him to show more of his ideas...

While David Cameron has clearly been trained in presentation skills, giving a more polished performance, David Davis has real gravitas, real presence, which is more credible...

Cameron’s presentation style puts emphasis and energy on the beginning of sentences — a technique that is coached — but which, without the substance to back it up, can look superficial. However, Davis was more clearly focused on what he wanted to say rather than how he wanted to say it.”

It's style versus substance again.

“If you are not relaxed and being your real self, it is easy to disrupt your balance. You end up playing a role rather than being who you are.

Gravitas is what makes you credible. It is presence, not presentation, that gives you gravitas. Presence is the person while presentation is just the shell. Cameron may have the upper hand in presentation but Davis has greater presence.

To have a real sense of presence you need to be able to just ‘be’ — which Davis manages very well. Cameron does not."

Dimbleby Smack-Down: Round 2

2005-11-20T15:03:00.000Z

The ITV round of the DD/DC hustings didn't really tell us anything new. We DD supporters were confirmed in our man, while DC supporters were confirmed in theirs (eg see the comments on ConservativeHome).

However many hustings we see, we're still left with a choice of one candidate who believes we should make Tory policy commitments and then sell them to the electorate, versus another who believes we should copy the brand leader and hope we can maybe slip in some Tory policy along the way.

There's little in the way of polling evidence to suggest that the latter approach would actually return us to power, but after three defeats, there's no denying many party members are prepared to give it a whirl.

PS For us peasants, watching the two hereditary Dimblebys in action is a reminder of just how inbred the whole politico/media aristocracy actually is. It puts me in mind of a comment posted elsewhere by one "Jack Stone", a notorious DC supporter. Without a trace of irony he says: "If David Cameron is unfit to be this country`s Prime Minister because he went to Eton then surely Prince William is unfit to be its King when he did exactly the same."

Actually, it's possible Jack is a Lib Dem agent provocateur- I can't decide.

Party Neutrality

2005-11-19T17:59:00.000Z

We've surmised right from the start that quite a few of the Party top brass were backing DC. But at least they've observed the usual niceties and ensured that the party maintained a public neutrality.

It seems that the same conventions don't apply to local constituency associations. The official website of Tottenham Conservatives carries a big "Campaign For David Cameron" banner, and the statement:

"Justin Hinchcliffe, Chairman of Tottenham Conservatives, is backing David Cameron's bid to become the new Leader of the Conservative Party. For more information on David, visit : cameroncampaign.org."

We had no idea you were allowed to use official party sites in this partisan way.

Maybe you're not. In which case Justin better get ready to face the disciplinary action he's so keen to see meted out to DD supporters.

PS According to the Enfield Independent, "Mr Hinchcliffe was suspended by party chiefs in 1995 for his outspoken views on the elderly and the unemployed and was the real life inspiration for comedian Harry Enfield's Tory Boy character." A typical DC supporter?

Of Commissions And Cojones

2005-11-19T11:47:00.000Z

From time to time we may have been slightly unkind to Tim Yeo. But this morning he stumbles across a fundamental truth.

He's worried about the environment. And despite being a DC supporter, he's fretting about the Boy Wonder's lack of...well, substance. As you will recall, the latter has promised to set up a cross-party commission to create a consensus on measures to combat climate change, to implement statutory annual cuts in carbon emissions and to create an independent carbon audit office.

Sounded great at the time, but thinking about it some more, Tim's concerned:

"Setting up a commission sounds a tiny bit as though we are going to think of some policies, some of which will be painful, but we aren't going to say what they are just yet. Young people...will be looking for explicit policy commitments. It is not enough to say this is very important and we are going to do better at it than the Government has."

Ah. Well, you see Tim, that's a teensy bit of a problem with your boy.

The trouble with politics...well, OK, leadership, is that it's rather more than simply "trust me- I'll call on the best brains in the land and work out what to do". Most political problems don't have a "correct" technical solution. Climate change is one of them- not only is there still expert disagreement on the causes, but most proposed solutions involve losers as well as winners.

Pensions is another excellent example. Most of us have known for ages that the pension age must be increased, and the longer we put it off, the worse the final disaster will be. But for obvious reasons, no politico wants to be the one giving the good news. So instead, we've had years of reports and commissions as successive "leaders" have sought to pass the parcel. Will spineless Tone implement the leaked Turner Report? Don't hold your breath.

So Tim- well done for spotting the issue. And fortunately it's not too late.

There's still time to switch your allegiance.

Meet The New Boss

2005-11-18T13:20:00.000Z

Those of us of a certain age still treasure the original 12" vinyl. And especially Side 2, Track 4, final crashing couplet:

"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss."

And as I've posted elsewhere, that sums up perfectly the prospect of a Cameron led Tory Party.

Because after six months of leadership contest, I still can't tell the policy difference between Tone and Dave. Of course, DC sees a difference- an important difference- as he spelled out in last week's Sunday Telegraph. But tellingly, it's a difference of character, not of substance, with DC asserting that unlike Tone, he is neither "belligerent,... lacking in follow-through,... nor vain."

So does it matter? After all, most of DC's supporters, and many of our battle-weary members, just want to get back into office. They talk in terms of DC giving us at least say 75% of what we want.

Well, it may or may not get us re-elected (the opinion polls so far are not encouraging), but even if it does, where does that leave us in terms of real politics?

This really comes down to what you think political parties are for. If they really are mainly about getting politicians elected, then sure...one strategy is this "me-too" clustering on the centre ground. Followers not leaders.

But then what we get are two (or three) Super-Butskellite parties that to all intents and purposes are pretty well indistinguishable. The REAL politics still go on, but they are conducted well away from the public- in those smoke-filled rooms, on the PM's sofa, or, dare I say it, over an agreeable Clubland lunch. Well away from us in any event.

The inevitable result is that our politicos go on doing pretty well what they decide is best. And that ineviatably boils down to spending more, taxing more, interfering more....until one day we all hit another set of buffers. At which point- after Gawd knows how much unemployment and all-round anguish- we peasants finally rise up to demand change...maybe starting by burning a few cars.

What Davis offers is something different- a pre-announced RULE for limiting tax and spend, and a clear commitment to introduce real choice and competition in our failing public services.

All Cameron is offering is "trust me". Which to all intents and purposes means more of the same.

Yup. Meet the new boss: same as the old boss.

Judy Tweaks Mr Punch

2005-11-18T08:27:00.000Z

It may be Punch and Judy, but there's no doubt that DC dealt with Paxo very comfortably last night. Even we DD supporters enjoyed his well-rehearsed put-downs. And yes, he did make Pax look like something from a bygone age. And yes, the setting was much better chosen than the gloom of the Carlton Club.

Of course, we think a comedy feedline about Pink Pussy is rather softer than "why are you a shit?", and there was more than a hint of Newsnight's well-established preference in the contest. But it would be churlish to deny DC's success on the night.

It did however highlight another major concern about the man- does he have any underlying convictions? In answer to Paxo's repeated questions about why he'd changed his mind on various policies, he said "because I've now had a jolly hard think about it." Like when he was Party Policy Co-ordinator, he hadn't had a hard think? No, because we'd lost another election, so clearly need to come up with a different product.

Hmm. That's exactly what we're so concerned about.

Davis On Global Poverty

2005-11-17T18:42:00.000Z

DD gave his speech on global poverty to the CSJ this evening, stressing the role of free trade, and the establishment of workable infrastructure in developing countries- particularly the establishemnt of proper governance arrangements and property rights.

He quotes with approval the words of New York Times columnist David Brooks:

“Just once, I'd like to see someone like Bono or Bruce Springsteen stand up at a concert and speak the truth to his fan base: that the world is complicated and there are no free lunches.

But if you really want to reduce world poverty, you should be cheering on those guys in pinstripe suits at the free-trade negotiations and those investors jetting around the world."

Spot on. But just as important is what he says about fighting for what we believe in:

"If I became leader of this party I wouldn’t spend half of this parliament setting up commissions.

I already know what I believe.

I believe today what I believed six months ago.

I believed six months ago what I believed five years ago.

I know that Britain’s economy needs lower and simpler taxes and the first budget of the
next Conservative government must begin to deliver them.

I know that thorough public service reform – extending choice and securing local and
professional control of schools and hospitals - is the only way that our pupils and patients
will get world class treatment.

And I know that free trade, good governance and property rights are the key to progress
in the third world.

I will spend all of this parliament explaining those beliefs to the British people.Some of them may not look popular now but time and the facts are on our side.

This parliament is still young. I have the determination to spend the whole of this parliament selling an authentic, socially-just conservatism to the British people.

In the last two parliaments our policies became as timid as the limited time we gave ourselves to sell them.

There will be serious policy development under my leadership but I’m not willing to spend three years in a policy vacuum – and spent one year filling it.

Our main policy priorities need to be communicated and explained now."

With Davis at the helm, they will be.

Sorry David

2005-11-17T11:36:00.000Z

It seems DD has always picked up flak for the actions of some of his more enthusiastic supporters. And now we've added to it.

This morning's Mail seizes on our post about dealing with reporters at the hustings, and says:

"The 'David Davis for Leader' team tells supporters attending the regional hustings with party members, which are closed to the press: "'If you're asked on the way in by a reporter who you support, say "undecided". On the way out, find the same reporter and say "I was undecided, but now it's definitely Davis." And make your way round as many other reporters as possible with the same message. If you feel confident, try the DC/DD conversion variant- "It was Cameron, but now it's definitely Davis."" Mr Davis says his leadership marks a departure from Labour spin. Doesn't sound like it."

Well, of course, we know we're not the official Davis team, and we're just a keen DD supporter independently hacking away in our jim-jams miles from the centre of power. And we know our post was meant as a JOKE- complete with sherbet dab.

But the fact is you can't really expect the Mail to pick up nuances of that kind.

So all we can say is sorry David. It won't happen again. Not on this blog.

Guns Open Up

2005-11-17T09:32:00.000Z

Fortunately for us Tories, the enemy trenches can't wait and are opening up well ahead of zero hour. Maybe we'll find out how well Lt Cameron holds up before we actually have to go over the top.

Ali "Big Bertha" Campbell has loosed off one salvo:

'It has been said that David Cameron is the new Tony Blair. But watching Mr Cameron trying to soundbite his way through the debate, it was clear that Mr Cameron is not remotely in Mr Blair’s league. Far from being the new Blair, he may actually be the new Alastair Campbell.

He knows how to craft a line and put it over. He has a feel for what tickles the media’s fancy, what makes a story and how to get it up as a headline, what combination of action and demeanour keeps the photographers happy. He knows how to take a line of attack against him and turn it into a line of attack against his attackers. These are skills all press officers deploy from time to time. And every leader in the media age needs this kind of professional support...

From what I’ve seen of Mr Cameron I would put PR and presentation skills top of a fairly short list.

Someone canvassed after the first of the Tory hustings said that the two contenders would make a great dream ticket. Perhaps that should be Davis as leader and Cameron as his spin doctor.'

Ah yes, say DC supporters, that's Ali von Hindenburg, so what would you expect?

But further down the line, Michael Crick took a pop on last night's Newsnight. He picked up DC's about-turn on binge drinking. As we know, Cameron got into a spot of bother over his directorship at Tiger Tiger company Urbium Plc. Crick now reveals that some of Urbium's London bars have unenviable police form on drunkanddisorderliness, and he contrasted this with DC's newfound concern for "responsibilty". He also gleefully reminded us of some earlier Cameron pronouncements strongly in favour of 24 hour drinking.

And even DC fan Nick Robinson couldn't stop himself having a go on yesterday's BBC News profile, interrupting the very first interview answer to point out it was just another Cameron soundbite.

Tonight, the Lieutenant will be tied to a stake in front of the Paxo firing party. We should find out if that silver cigarette case really can deflect bullets.

No, But Seriously Though...

2005-11-16T20:59:00.000Z

Yesterday's post on do-it-yourself media manipulation seems to have upset a few DC supporters. The problem was our suggestion that DD supporters attending the hustings might care to tell any hovering reporters that it was DD's outstanding performance that had swung them.

Little enough you might think, but it clearly hit a very raw nerve. "Disgusting lies"..."appalling deceit"..."odious calumny" are some of the politer responses (well OK, not "odious calumny", but I do like the sound of that one).

It seems rather odd. After all, following those media shenanigans up in Blackpool, I thought it was common ground that the media are there to be managed. It's no good just blundering around minding you own: they'll only relieve themselves on your head. No, you have to take them in hand. Give them something to gnaw on that isn't attached to your own body.

And frankly, we poor innocents in the DD camp have been in awe at the sophisticated media management skills of team DC. From that fantastic Newsnight/Luntz coup, to the skilful twisting of DD's words, to the wonderful parrying of the drugs issue back onto the Mail, someone not a million miles from DC has been playing a blinder.

So why all the fuss? What are we actually talking about here? I do admit my suggestions yesterday were cheap peasant fare compared to the pricey haute cuisine being served up elsewhere. But it's all of a piece. As GBS was wont to observe, once you've established what you are, haggling over the price is scarcely the issue.

What we mustn't do- any of us- is ever to fall into the trap of thinking the media are on our side. They will remain Pinocchio's drinking companions. Ever ready to betray those they have befriended.

PS Over at Non-Trivial Solutions Andrew has a post in a similar vein, commenting on Michael Gove's piece in today's Times: 'Superficially, it's an unfunny look at what Jeremy Paxman interviewing Jesus would have been like. Read between the lines, and it's a masterful exercise in the reduction of expectations for Cameron's upcoming performance on Thursday night when he faces the demon interviewer of Wood Lane...
Just a small part of the campaign, and reasonably trivial in the grand scheme of things, but it just shows how much thought and effort and sheer cynicism, frankly, that the Cameron campaign have put into getting him elected.'

The Davis Message

2005-11-16T15:50:00.000Z

What with all the excitement and all, some DC supporters have forgotten DD's underlying message:

"What exactly is Davis' 'message'? My understanding was that his pitch was (a) I'm the unity candidate, (b) I'm the experience candidate and (c) I'm the candidate with the right background. All this is perfectly legitimate stuff, but hardly amounts to an intellectually coherent message that can be 'carried on'.

In reality of course, Davis spelled out his message right back at the start of the campaign in May:

"At exactly the time when the Blairite model is failing, it would be extraordinary for the Tory party to try to imitate it. Instead, timeless Conservative principles need to be applied to modern problems. Those principles are rooted in a commitment to liberty, and liberty does not date...

So now, only a low-tax economy will generate the wealth required to pay for secure pensions and better healthcare. Only radical reform of public services, empowering the parent and patient, can give the nation the quality of schools and hospitals it expects. Only a zero-tolerance approach to yobbery, crime and disorder will make our neighbourhoods safe."

Since then he has filled out the detail, from his "Growth Rule" boosting growth though limiting tax and spend, to his pledged Swedish Model of schools reform, to his choice and competition agenda for healthcare. And throughout it all, he has consistently stressed the need to help the most vulnerable in our society, the very people who are most damaged by current state failure.

For us, the core of his message is a bold Tory programme for maintaining economic health while transforming our public services. And no, it's not all DD's own work- indeed most of it is set out in the Reform Manifesto and Direct Democracy. And yes, it's possible that DC would also pick up some of the ideas.

But only DD has had the courage to commit himself publicly to the programme. He is a man of strength, and as we said right at the outset, a conviction politician. And that is what makes this DD's message.

Facing The Labour Onslaught

2005-11-16T15:28:00.000Z

DD has written to Party members about what we can expect after 6th December:

"The Conservative Party should be braced for a fierce onslaught from the Labour government once this contest is over. Blair will deploy all his formidable despatch box skills from day one. He will patronise, he will bully, he will ridicule, he will demand to know where’s the beef, he will boast of his experience and attempt to belittle his new rival. And he will be roared on by his backbench bully-boys, who are terrified that our great party is once again on the march.

I believe I am the candidate best equipped to withstand the Blair/Brown offensive and to take our party back to government.

It will take guts, resilience, a vision of a new Conservative future for our country and, above all, experience to withstand the fire to come."

Yes, it would be nice if we could all be...you know, nice. But as DD points out, "Blair and Brown and their army of New Labour spin-doctors and propagandists...know that the first 100 days of a new Conservative leadership will be critical to the future direction of politics in this country".

So none of us should think we can look forward to a gentle warm-up game in no-man's land this Christmas.

Experienced or not, it's helmets on from day one.

Hustings Hustle

2005-11-15T20:31:00.000Z

The hustings are underway, but since they are closed to the press, we have to depend on the accounts of attendees. Which generally means partisans of one or other hue.

For example, today's ConservativeHome report on the Newcastle hustings is written by Dominic Llewllyn, a DC supporter. Naturally he reckons DC won, even if the clincher seemed to be:

'The only David Davis t-shirt was one wrapped over the arm of his assistant... Cameron on the other hand had manifestos, three types of flyer, and mints with the slogan “a breath of fresh air” emblazoned on them.'

Right.

We're looking forward to our local hustings next week, but meanwhile you do have to wonder how much direct impact they will have. 11 hustings, average attendance 400-500?, equals about 5,000 attendees. Against 250,000 eligible voting members. One in fifty.

Once again the real impact will be intermediated by the...er, media.

So just a few reminders for attending DD supporters. If you're asked on the way in by a reporter who you support, say "undecided". On the way out, find the same reporter and say "I was undecided, but now it's definitely Davis." And make your way round as many other reporters as possible with the same message.

If you feel confident, try the DC/DD conversion variant- "It was Cameron, but now it's definitely Davis."

And for the super-confident, why not offer likely looking reporters a lick of your DD Sherbet Dab?

Bloggers For Davis 38

2005-11-15T18:00:00.000Z

Over at the Outside Story, Mark Adams tells us to pull ourselves together:

'I have noticed a of late amongst pro-Davis bloggers. In spite of announcing good policies on , and , and giving Cameron a kicking on QT, Davis still lags in the polls. DC has claimed he is “on a roll” and his supporters are even apportioning jobs in his shadow cabinet. Cameron’s lucky not have had a meltdown but that is not so hard when you don’t actually say anything.'

Mark questions the polls. "Nice" Tories perhaps don't like to admit they're voting DD- particularly now he's behind- an effect routinely observed in party polls:

'In every election Labour wins fewer votes than the raw polling data predicts. Pollsters apply ‘dampeners’ to the Labour numbers so they will reflect the result at the ballot box. In between elections those dampeners are removed, giving Labour their seemingly insurmountable lead that will evaporate at the next election.'

Could the same thing be going on here? We've certainly seen some wild polling variation, so could it be? Could it possibly be true? On a chilly November evening it's a thought to bring a rosy glow to the coldest cheeks.

We will pull ourselves together. As Mark says, we must "fight this down to the wire".

Not Quite Free Lunch

2005-11-15T15:23:00.000Z

Winter drawers on, and that nice Mr Fawkes becomes ever more solicitous of our welfare. Indeed he's offered to buy us lunch at some pricey wood panelled joint up West- a touching act of generosity so typical of the man.

But someone much wiser than I once warned me about free lunches, particularly when they're proffered by Papist conspirators. And sure enough, my legal advisor pointed out the smallprint: in the highly unlikely event that DD were to lose the contest, I'd have to pay, rather than Guido.

So I had the Tyler derivatives team look over the whole deal. And they reckon that once it's marked to market, it's not free at all!

I won't bore you with all the tedious arithmetic, but it turns out the market is now pricing DC's probability of winning at 92%, and DD's at only 8%. Which means that fair odds for Guido's bet- for such it is- are about 11.5/1. Some way from the evens on offer from "Honest Gui".

So I've offered him an alternative. If DD wins he stands us both lunch at that posh place; if DC wins I stand us lunch at the Upper Crust on Waterloo Station (chef's signature dish- All-Day Breakfast Baguette).

Can't say fairer than that.

Go On...Put The Boot In!

2005-11-14T12:11:00.000Z

Over at PoliticalBetting Smithson expresses the LibDems' frustration that our leadership contest hasn't been the bloodfest they crave. Take that heavily promoted QT bout. Mike and the Uni LD Society had laid in the Stellas and Doritos for a good night in front of the box. And what happened?

'Davis was given a lot of performance coaching while skilled writers sought to anticipate how the debate would go and prepare “killer” sound-bites aimed at Cameron...But Davis simply failed to use the “killer sound-bites” - even though he had learned them by heart and the course of the the debate gave him the ideal opportunity.'

No wonder they want their money back.

But surely they're forgetting we've still got that Kennedy v Laws bout to come. That will be a no holds barred contest that with any luck will leave the canvas soaked in gore.

Fantasy Cabinet

2005-11-14T08:45:00.000Z

All over the Tory Blogosphere, the new game for DC supporters is to construct his cabinet. Over on ConservativeHome Goldie summarises:

"Time to start thinking about the composition of the Shadow Cabinet. This is actually rather important. If the Conservatives want to win, we need to present a very unified party, with a number of intelligent, obviously competent and pleasant personalities in the frontlines with the inexperienced Cameron.

There are just about enough qualified people to fill a decent team: veterans like Davis, Hague, IDS, Rifkind and new talent like Fox, Chris Grayling and others."

So it's Davis to remain at Home Affairs, Hague for Shadow Chancellor, and Doc remaining Shadow Foreign Sec? Ah, but what about Ken? Or why not- you'll like this- why not bring back the Vulcan?

"The man for the big Shadow Chancellor's job is John Redwood. Let's take the fight to Brown and Blair with the most intelligent and articulate member of the Commons as our new 'big beast - slim version'. If we can win the intellectual case then the election is won. DC himself said we need an intellectual revoution to match Thatcher and Keith Joseph. Joseph is similar in many ways to Redwood."

Welllll...apart from the fact that Maggie never made the Monk her Shadow Chancellor, somehow I don't see there being a similar affinity between DC and JR.

All this is more wishful thinking of course. A man who has fought the leadership election on a "modernisation" platform, and has studiedly avoided any job commitments, is not about to dredge up a load of has-been fairweather friends tarred with the brush of past failures.

No. George stays with the Treasury, Ed for the Home Office, and Gove for Shadow Foreign.

Because DC can't refuse his chums their well-earned appointments simply by arguing they lack experience. They only have to utter the magic words:

'I think the real answer to the experience question is do you know what needs to be done? Have you learned the lessons from the last eight years? And if the answer to that question is “yes” that's much more important than the length of experience you have.'

It's all uncomfortably reminiscent of that old Mike Yarwood line from his wide-eyed impression of a new, inexperienced, and wildly unworldly President Jimmy Carter: "If you got half a mind to be President, that's all you need".

And we all remember how that ended.

There's Still Time

2005-11-13T12:37:00.000Z

With both William H and the Doc now declaring for DC, it's even clearer who the Party heirarchy are backing.

But, although the odds are most decidedly stacked against us, there's still time for us conviction peasants to make our voices heard. DD won't go down without a fight, and neither should we.

Today's Sunday Telegraph piece by DC should spur us on. It precisely exemplifies the policy-liteness that so concerns us:

"I believe we need a new style of politics: thoughtful, measured and moderate. I believe we need serious long-term policy thinking to tackle the challenges we face. And I believe that if you give people more freedom and opportunity, they and society will grow stronger. That's the kind of leadership I offer, and I'm confident it will return our Party to government."

Yes, well...

I'm sorry to keep on about the "Opposites Test", but just read the article again and try to imagine anyone saying the opposite of any of his statements. Brown, Kennedy, Clarke, Edward Leigh...it's all so anodyne as to be meaningless.

This is the time when those of us who still believe in those "timeless Tory principles" must make our voices heard.

Hopefully, DD can still win. But should he lose, we need the new management to be under no illusion that they can safely ignore us. The worst possible result for conviction politics would be a DC landslide.

So, About Those Show Trials...

2005-11-12T21:34:00.000Z

Those of us who may end up facing charges of Trotskyist tendencies have been reminding ourselves how those show trials work.

The basic idea seems to be that you confess in public to heretical beliefs and working to undermine the Party. A few choice phrases about how your mouth has been full of bile, and how you don't deserve anything but contempt are also generally appreciated. You get shot anyway of course, but your family may be spared.

Well, I'm certainly guilty of Small-Statism, so on that alone I'm probably a goner. But Mrs T's spoken approvingly of DC's "gorgeousness", so with luck she may survive.

And for any who reckon it won't come to that, maybe they should read today's lead editorial in the Times- the Cameroonian Pravda:

'Party leaders should start leaning on constituencies with a view to establishing whether ideological outcasts truly represent the Party. Until then, the rebels themselves, if they are indeed as principled as they often insist that they are, should take the Party manifesto...to bed with them each night and digest it. And if they don’t like what they read, there is always the Liberal Democrats.'

Or Siberia.

PS Yes I know the Pravda piece is ostensively about the Labour Party, but you don't need a PhD in Kremlinology to understand the real meaning.

Any The Wiser?

2005-11-12T19:59:00.000Z

It still ain't over til it's over, but William Hague's declaration for DC may well be the final clincher.

For us DD supporters, it's doubly disappointing. Apart from probable defeat for our candidate- frankly always on the cards since Blackpool- we had hoped that a contest would at least tease out some policy substance from DC.

But no dice. Except for his position on downgrading ecstacy, and withdrawal from the Euro parliamentary group, the rest is pure flim-flam: we'll look at this, we're concerned about that, and we may reduce taxes if and when we decide to do so.

WH thinks DC has that certain...je ne sais quoi. But well, we'd just been hoping for a little more somehow.

So it looks like policy-lite Conservatism. And as long as it lifts us 10% in the polls, the party will presumably be very happy.

We'll see.

Hope Still Ahead

2005-11-12T11:46:00.000Z

With those sands spilling through the glass, DC remains well ahead among party members. Today's YouGov poll puts him two-to-one ahead, the same as last week.

And it's nothing to do with policy or experience- it's the hope that this young presentable PR man can take us back to power. As Anthony King comments:

'Few rank-and-file Tories seem overly impressed by Mr Cameron. Many of them see him as inexperienced and a lightweight, a man with style but not much substance. However, a large majority also see him as a man of the future under whom the Conservatives could make a fresh start.

Mr Davis appears to suffer precisely because he is the more established and experienced of the two.

The "Which candidate?" section contains the killer statistic from Mr Davis's point of view. Nearly two thirds of Conservative Party members, 64 per cent, believe that, of the two men, Mr Cameron "would do more to boost the Conservative Party's chances of winning the next general election". A mere 21 per cent think that Mr Davis would prove the more effective vote-winner.'

It's that Keynes beauty contest again, with Tory members setting on one side their own convictions, and trying instead to second-guess who the broader electorate will judge the prettier contestant.

Frank Johnson reckons "niceness" is the X-Factor we've latched onto. We've decided the electorate want "niceness", so that's what we'll offer them.

And so powerful is this extraordinary crowd wisdom that it's even won over DC's sworn enemy the Daily Mail:

'The opportunity is there. The prospects exciting. The Tories have succumbed to despair for too long. Yes, it is a gamble, but this is a time to choose hope. The Mail believes constituency members should vote for David Cameron.'

Of course, that could be a problem for DC- with even the Mail onside, who on earth will he line up for those Clause IV show trials?

More Cameron Straw Men

2005-11-11T17:44:00.000Z

Not having much in the way of policy himself, Dave C is proving extraordinarily productive at inventing policies for DD:

"If all we have to say on the economy is up-front personal tax cuts, what do we have to say to the millions of people in our country who don't pay income tax but who are still living in poverty? If all we have to say on education is `Bring back 20 grammar schools', what do we have to say to the parents of children in the 26,000 schools where standards are falling and Labour are failing?"

What? Davis has never said anything like that.

Just how dumb does Dave think we members are? I mean, we know those "ista" guys don't think much of us in general, and would much rather we were more like them. But it would be nice if they'd credit us with just a little intelligence. Every now and again.

Core Vote Caricature

2005-11-11T12:29:00.000Z

As we've noted before, DD's campaign must stay alert to those who'd rather contest the caricature than the real thing.

Andrew picks up the same theme:

'This meme about Davis running a core vote campaign has to be knocked on the head. Of course, it is in the media's interest to continue proclaiming David Cameron as an enlightened liberal Conservative, and Davis as an evil right-wing baby-eater...

Davis has been bold in pushing a radical public service reform package aimed at improving the lives of those most damaged by state failure. He deserves to be rewarded for that by getting a chance to turn around the soft-left liberal press as leader of the party. When Cameron is first seriously tested, as I'm sure he will be against Paxman next week, his instinct will be to run for the core. When Davis is so tested, as he has been over the last few weeks, his instinct is to stay the course.'

Hear, hear.

Pax Tax Axe

2005-11-11T09:59:00.000Z

Well, it certainly wasn't comfortable viewing. But nobody actually wins against Paxo, and at least DD stayed on his feet. We'll see how DC fares next week.

Paxo's opening shot- "Why are you a shit?"- brought back memories of that notorious intro with Theresa May- "Why are you so unattractive?" And just to underline the point again, his power to behave like this comes from the BBC's position as a tax funded "national treasure" that doesn't have to answer to its customers. Interviewers on commercial staions just don't behave like this.

And tax occupied quite a chunk of the interview. Paxman repeatedly tried to get DD to say the £38bn was a promise, and DD replied:

"This is the strategy ... there will be a reduction in taxes to create growth in the economy...I did not use the word guarantee, I said it was a strategy."

We've posted on this before, stressing the importance of the "Growth Rule". This is a medium term strategy for limiting the growth of public spending, and thereby funding reductions in taxation, and thereby lifting the long-term growth of the economy. Simple isn't it.

Unfortunately, while it's simple from out here, in the sweaty confines of Paxman's disembowelling pit it gets a lot trickier. Promise? Guarantee? Strategy? What do you mean? Can we trust a shit anyway?

One thing we must not allow is to have this strategy get twisted into a claim that we can abolish the economic cycle. The Times and the DT both carry stories that DD's plans have been rubbished by "leading economists". Actually, that turns out to be Peter Spencer of the ITEM Club:

'Professor Spencer said that if taxes were cut in a recession, the resulting high interest rates would offset any benefits. “I don’t think we can give Mr Davis the benefit of the doubt on this — these policies would basically fail,” Professor Spencer said. “Any extra spending seen on the high street as a result of tax cuts would be offset by lower exports and investments.”

For reasons we needn't go into here, at one time I knew Prof Spencer, and I have the highest regard for his economic judgement. So when he tells us that you can't avoid recessions by cutting taxes, we should listen.

But the thing is- that's not what DD is saying. What he's offering is a medium term strategy for lifting the trend growth rate- not abolishing the cycle. So how did Pete think otherwise? Surely...surely someone wouldn't have misrepresented DD's position to him and then reported his answer.

Someone's been passing around the porkies again. I wonder who that might be.

(PS- I expect Prof Spencer would be only too pleased to issue a clarification if DD's office contacted him with the facts).

Cameron Burns Bridges

2005-11-10T22:06:00.000Z

So Speccie Politician Of The Year DC has broken with convention and claimed outright that we'd lose the next election under DD. He says:

"Our party faces a clear choice in this leadership contest. Do we move to the right, or do we fight for the centre ground?

Do we stick to our core vote comfort zone or do we reach out? Do we repeat the mistakes of the past, or do we change to win for the future?

That is our choice. If we get it right we can end the Blair era. If we get it wrong, the Blair era stays - under new mismanagement...from Gordon Brown."

This sort of unhelpful rhetoric obviously worsens party divisions, but set that on one side. For the favourite who reckons he's going to win, it is ominous behaviour. It says he is after a fight.

And if Dave wins- still more if he wins big- I warn you. I warn you not to have core comfort blankets anywhere about your person.

Not unless you fancy participating in a Clause 4 show trial.

Are We Talking About The Same Thing?

2005-11-10T20:50:00.000Z

Tim Montgomerie's ConservativeHome is a great site- there's always something worth reading. But today's twelve key questions for the leadership contenders have left us bemused and somewhat disorientated.

The idea was great: to help us decide on the basis of candidates' answers to 12 key policy questions. Fantastic.

The trouble is Tim's questions don't actually cover the practical issues which we think are absolutely central to our choice- public service reform, localism, security, and Europe , to name but four.

He concentrates instead on what might be termed moral and ethical issues, such as stem cell research, the right to die, and genocide in Darfur. Plus two internal party issues. All very important no doubt, but in our view, not likely to resonate with Britain in the same way as say sorting out healthcare.

We're not the only ones to raise an eyebrow- or in Guido's case a cackling laugh- but when we can't even agree on the right questions...well, that can't be right, can it?

So we're left wondering if we are all talking about the same thing? Are we indeed all Tories? Or are some of us something else entirely?

Reading Tim's questions, we wonder if Mrs T and I are something else. But what? Just as long as we're not those lizard guys with false human faces that rip off.

Bloggers For Davis 37

2005-11-10T17:00:00.000Z

Dan Paterson is any extremely active BFD. Over at Make Socialism History he says:

"I trust David Davis; he answers his questions in full detail and understands the workings of Government. Mr Davis has been in Parliament since 1987 and as such has been there significantly longer than Mr Cameron. He understands what is required of the party over the next few years; he understands that what we do NOT need is spin and glossy coated politics. I believe David Davis would...tell some hard truths, while bringing a spirit of trust back to politics. This is essential as ourselves and the Labour party have managed to lose the respect of the British public almost entirely over the past ten years and if we do not...remedy this, the situation will be irrepairable."

It is a good point. Unlike those- such as Polly Toynbee- who believe British democracy would be best served by the Tories becoming a clone of New Labour, we believe healthy democracy depends on electors having real choice. And that ought to include the choice of political style.

The Eurosceptics Choice

2005-11-10T09:47:00.000Z

Eu-Serf has a pithy post on why DD is a better choice than DC for we Eurosceptics. Looking at their positions on fisheries policy, Serf says:

'David Cameron has attracted many prominent Eurosceptics to his cause, with his promise of breaking with the EPP. Whilst that is a move I would like to see, Davis has more concrete proposals for changes in our EU relationship.'

Substance Vs Style...Again

2005-11-10T08:20:00.000Z

This is Pamela Parker. She is the...umm, brunette President of the Conservative Women's Organisation who took such strong exception to DD's assertion that blondes have more fun.

Except of course, that he said nothing like that...he was simply being polite to "natural" blonde Martha Kearney.

But no matter. This whole incident is just one more example of style over substance in our leadership contest. Having read some of Parker's articles, I would expect her to be very attracted to Davis both for his bold policy platform, and his substance. But it seems she's been turned off by a few lighthearted remarks and a couple of overenthusiastic DD supporters.

It's all very reminiscent of that spectacularly non-PC remark made by JM Keynes about investing: "Speculation is like being a judge in a beauty contest where the objective is not to pick the prettiest girl, but the girl the other judges pick." (I can't imagine what Pam would make of that). We must pick a leader who appeals not so much to us "core" judges, but those other "floating" judges.

The problem is, this ain't no beauty contest.

Our winner will have to do more than parade up and down the catwalk wiggling his bum and doing a few twirls. He's actually going to go into battle against the dark forces of New Labour and, yes, Jeremy Paxman.

Davis did both yesterday- superbly.

Cameron didn't.

Storm In A Thingie Cup

2005-11-09T17:07:00.000Z

A favourite wheeze of the DC camp has been to paint DD as a mcp. Admittedly not helped by the fact that his wife once jokingly called him exactly that.

Hence the coverage of today's Woman's Hour session with the two Davids. The DC House Journal whoops:

'David Davis's attempts to woo the crucial petticoat vote came unstuck today... Mr Davis, who ruffled feathers earlier in his leadership campaign by boasting that he had never cooked a meal at home, expressed an immediate preference for blondes during the broadcast hustings. After a short pause the former SAS man added: "Having said that...my wife's a brunette."

The "macho" comment was immediately branded as patronising by Pamela Parker, president of the Conservative Women's Organisation (CWO). "It's bad taste. He should have just said nothing," she said.'

Hmm. Mrs T and I actually heard the session. Our reaction was that both Davids came out of it well- a good party political, in fact. But it was classic lightweight BBC- eg they test marketed the two on the basis of their photos alone to a group of young mums. And the "blonde" question was part of a jokey sequence- including one on...er, pants- clearly intended to end the session with a few laughs. It might have been that public service broadcasting thing.

So what is the deal with Pamela Parker and the Times? Should DD have said "How dare you ask me a disgraceful sexist question of that nature. I refuse to engage in coiffureal stereotyping."

Talk sense will ya.

Taking Care Of Business

2005-11-09T15:21:00.000Z

After Tone's breathtakingly evasive low-punching display at lunchtime, Our Man is at the Dispatch Box defending our historic freedoms.

Measured and assured, he's every inch the voice of reason in the face of Labour hysteria. No wonder those Labour backbenchers who are constantly intervening look so nervous- I actually felt quite sorry for the Blair Babe from Cleethorpes who was left in flames.

Go and watch. And remember- this is what we mean by experience.

5pm Update: DD 1 - TB 0.
And come 6th December, we can look forward to much more of the same.
Can't wait.

Davis Surges Ahead

2005-11-09T07:31:00.000Z

The Big Mo remains with Davis. This morning's Times/Populus poll puts him ahead among Tory voters by 50% to 37%, a complete reversal since last month.

This is an excellent result, reflecting not just DD's strong showing on QT and elsewhere, but also his compelling policy agenda.

Naturally, the severely rattled DC camp are rubbishing it: Populus are hopeless, DD's "only" ahead among Tory voters, and, even if it's true, we can't afford to pander to our "core vote".

We'll leave the judgement on Populus to Anthony (wearing his most impartial hat), but what should we make of the finding that DC remains 37% to 30% ahead among voters generally? We reckon that's just a function of repective media coverage. They've spent the last month presenting DC as a Pop Idol favourite, and it's highly unlikely that non-Tories will have put themselves through QT etc. So they won't have seen DC's failures.

As for that "core vote" argument, we happen to believe that DD and his policies would appeal very widely. So we just disagree with the DC assertion.

DD is back on the road to victory.

The Times itself is so concerned that they've been forced to spell out their well-known support for DC. But the best even they can come up with is "Yes, inexperienced...policy-vague...DC is an enormous gamble...but well, what the hell...roll those dice!"

Hmm...you know what? We'll make up our own minds.

That Conspiracy Theory

2005-11-08T17:22:00.000Z

As shown in our exclusive woodcutgrab, Plotter Against Davis Guido Fawkes has been keeping some very dubious company.

We advise him to consider his own indiscretions before he spreads any more of his baseless conspiracy theories.

Just A Bit Of Fun

2005-11-08T15:49:00.000Z

You've probably already done the Who Should You Vote For Test, but if not you should give it a try.

It told me I should vote for DD (+39), and this is the advice it seems to have consistently given to other DD bloggers (eg see here and here).

But over at Camp Cameron, it seems the advice has been somewhat less straightforward. In fact, on the basis of their actual views, most of them have clearly been advised to vote not for DC but for DD.

Naturally, their reaction is one of denial. Gavin Ayling (actually an excellent blogger) writes revealingly:

"While I support Mr Cameron, the test found me in favour of Mr Davis. I think this is because there is one gaping hole. I will not be voting on policy because the public won't be either.

Cameron's policies are not so bad that a typical Conservative cannot support them, but they are weaker than Davis'. What is important, though, is who could become Prime Minister. The public will vote for Cameron, not based on policies, but based on charisma, character and appearance (no matter how much we wish it weren't so) so a Cameron-led Conservative party can get elected while a Davis-led party would do little better than Mr Howard."

And that really is the case for DC in a nutshell.

Such a pity the evidence doesn't support the hope.

DD Campaign Video

2005-11-08T13:56:00.000Z

For those who can't make it to the hustings, you can see the potted version here.

Well, actually DC isn't in it.

But I don't suppose he would have told you much anyway.

Let 'Em Have It Ma'am

2005-11-08T07:54:00.000Z

In terms of party unity, there is a very striking difference between the DD and DC positions. Whereas DD been assiduous in reaching out across the party- witness his speech on social justice yesterday- DC has made it pretty clear it's his way or no way.

Unsurprisingly, some of us members are very unhappy about this, and while many have been biting their tongues, over on ConservativeHome Barbara Villiers bites back.

Jaz, a DC supporter, has just given us the usual line:

'DD can talk all he wants, his age works against him... I'm looking for a winner, a prime-minister who appears prime ministerial....Davis strikes me like Howard as the leader of the opposition...not a PM who has the media manipulation and charisma to take the top job.

DD is talking [about social justice] because he has been forced to do so by the Cameron campaign of compassion. DD's profile strikes me a "tough on crime, low taxes, less government regulation, less public spending" man.... Which is precisely what every Tory leader after Major has offered to the public without winning an election.'

Barbara lets him have it with both barrels:

"What on earth is this age thing? I can tell by your name that you are 'young' -well let me tell you this my dear, you too will be old one day. And guess what - your brain will still be sharp, your bits won't have fallen on and you will still have desires, hopes and dreams. What ageist claptrap! Would you say a leader was too black or too much of a woman or too Jewish?

If you go back and read David Davis' speech early this summer to the Centre for Policy Studies you will see many references to what amounts to 'compassionate conservativsm'. David Cameron does not have the monopoly on that nor did he think of it first.

As for media manipulation, I'll let you in on this one shall I, it is the media in this country who does the manipulation. Cameron is a creation of the media and when they are tired of their creation (as they are already demonstrating) they will turn on him and all the brownies and smoothies won't make a damn bit of difference.

Oh, and as for appearing Prime ministerial -try to see if you can get a look at a news item - when Davis addressed Parliament after the 7/7 bombings.

Try this one - Cameron across the box from Brown on PMQ's. Rabbit caught in the headlights quickly comes to mind. Hint: It's not Gordon Brown!"

Barbara, we couldn't have put it better. Or, indeed, nearly as well.

Trust Me: I'm A Politician

2005-11-07T11:53:00.000Z

Sir John Major doesn't like it:

"I don't think David Davis is right to put a specific figure [on tax] because there are too many intangibles. You should set a general direction so that people understand where we are coming from, where we are going to and why we are heading in that direction and what the difficulties we are likely to encounter will be."

And David Cameron is now going so far as to say the whole thing shows why he's the better man, despite his breathtaking lack of experience:

"I think the real answer to the experience question is do you know what needs to be done? Have you learned the lessons from the last eight years? And if the answer to that question is “yes” that's much more important than the length of experience you have.

David Davis has been in Parliament for a very long time but I think he has got the judgements about tax wrong - and I have been in parliament for a short length of time but I think I have got the judgements about tax right. I think it is those judgements that are far more important than the length of time you have been in parliament."

That's what you think, is it Dave? Based presumably on all that experience.

The fact is both Sir J and DC have missed the point.

What DD has recognised a fundamental, and- for politicians- dismal truth: we can't actually trust their judgements about tax, particularly the overall tax burden. Fine words about what they may think are no longer enough: we need another Golden Rule to get them back on the straight and narrow.

Now, I'm sure we don't need to rehearse all the arguments again, but the Reform Growth Rule is eminently moderate and entirely workable. Among other things, it already deals with the cyclical deficit issue which so excites the Grauniad and FT this morning (maybe they should take the trouble to read up on it).

And we need to get real. By all means draw a discreet veil over Sir John's own tax raising exploits, and let's not question Dave's promise to "share the proceeds of growth". They are both honourable men with the very best of intentions.

But we live in a naughty old world, with good deeds hard to come by. And the blunt truth is that politicians need rules. Particularly when dosh is involved.

It's funny. Only Davis seems to have got it.

Greetings Pop Pickers!

2005-11-07T07:24:00.000Z

It was yesterday's new soundbite from DC:

"There is a big choice opening up here. Do we go down a sort of core vote, right wing agenda playing the same tunes.

If we play the same tunes we end up with the same song, we end up with the same position in the charts, second and I do not want that to happen".

When he said it, I thought it so clunky my toes curled right through the fluffy tops of my slippers. Apart from anything else- sorry Dave- I think "the charts" are seen as a bit Smashy and Nicey these days.

Still, the media have lapped it up. The pinko Pink-Un (circulation collapsing so fast they've just summarily shot their Editor), approvingly headlines 'Cameron cautions against rightwing agenda'.

But as we've argued before, in reality DD's "tune" is very different to the five-note ditty we essayed last time out. No headlining on immigration, and in place of Hattie Jacques and Whack-O!, we've got Reform's public service programme.

Critically, DD's putting forward a policy on Tax'n'Spend, rather than the pious hope of "efficiency savings". So while last time we mumbled about a trivial £4bn of tax cuts conditional on the shaky proposition that we could find even more efficiency savings than Labour, now we're saying 'we will implement a budget rule, which over a parliament is expected to generate the equivalent of £1200 tax cuts for every family'. Much clearer, much more firmly based, and much more compelling.

And we should all remember that DD has repeatedly stressed his commitment to the most vulnerable in our society, and how we can use traditional "right-wing" tools to help them. Last time out, we said nothing about this.

We will hear much more about his approach to social justice later today. Prepare to tap those tootsies.

BFD Weekly Round-Up 2

2005-11-06T13:28:00.000Z

In a week dominated by DD's win in the QT head-to-head, there's been a certain spring in the posts of Bloggers For Davis.

Post-match commentary from James Whatsthatsmell noted that 'as much as the media may like Cameron for talking a good talk, Tories like Davis for walking a good walk'. Andrew Nontrivialsolutions reckoned 'Davis was...statesmanlike throughout. The most impressive parts were when he spoke on issues that clearly mean a great deal to him, such as his passionate defence of Iain Duncan Smith for his recent work on Social Justice'.

Gary Monro homed in on the experience issue: 'David Davis has the necessary pugnaciousness, cool, intelligence, policy and presence to deliver KO after KO against this government. For the time being I believe David Cameron will be out of his depth. He is a class politician in the making; Davis is a class politician already made.'

As shown in the polls, QT was enough to persuade some DC supporters to switch to DD, and the blogs told us why. Take this morning-after post from DC diehard Gav:

'Oh dear.

I was convinced that Cameron was the only one of the two who could come across on TV. I was convinced that Cameron’s policies were not so bad that he shouldn’t still win. I was convinced that I should vote for Cameron.

And now I’m not.

Davis’ policies on the EU, taxation, social welfare and the targetting of efforts all were head and shoulders above Cameron’s attempts. Cameron appeared to lose his temper a couple of times and was ooohhed by the audience…

I have now returned to the ‘undecided’.

Even the legendary Guido Fawkes was forced to admit (after only a couple of turns on the rack) that DD had won by a broken nose. Sadly, after last night's festivities, Guido is no longer with us.

Elsewhere, Eu-Serf examines DD's policies on Europe, concluding: 'We can be sure that come what may, this is a man that will stand up for the right of British people to be ruled by those of their choosing, and not by an unelected elite in another land.' Hear, hear.

Andrew (busy week for him) explores DD's healthcare policies, a subject picked up by James Hellyer, who contrasts DD's substance with DC's bland statement 'that we can't get good healthcare on the cheap, and advocating the abandonment of the Patient's Passport (which would mark the end of any choice based health agenda)'.

Most of us Bloggers For Davis are virtual campaigners, sitting in our pyjamas all day at our PCs, never seeing anyone and living on packets of Chocolate Hobnobs. But some of us actually get out there to do battle. Jonathan Sheppard reports a debate he had with DC supporter Roger Helmer MEP at a Conservative meeting in Lincoln:

'One comment summed up the situation so far: "Jonathan - I agreed with everything you said - but I'm not sure I'm going to vote for Davis... yet".

A month to go - and more healthy debates to be had within the party.'

Maybe, as Danny The Fink said on Newsnight, this really is "a victory for Conservatism".

Davis And Cameron Neck And Neck

2005-11-06T11:21:00.000Z

Today's Telegraph/ICM poll shows DD and DC neck and neck in the only race that matters- the one to defeat Gordo's Labour Party in the next election.

'Asked who they would vote for if Mr Brown was Labour leader at the next election and Mr Davis was leader of the Conservative Party, 41 per cent said they would vote Labour and 33 per cent said Conservative.

Asked who they would vote for if Mr Brown was Labour leader and Mr Cameron was Tory leader, 41 per cent said Labour and 34 per cent Conservative.'

The point is, as we've argued many times before, none of our candidates offers a miracle solution- no matter how much we might wish otherwise.

The next election will be won on the basis of offering Britain a real alternative: winning the argument not the beauty parade.

Davis Coming Back

2005-11-05T09:50:00.000Z

This morning's YouGov poll of Tory members shows that DD has cut DC's lead by 18 percentage points over the past ten days.

The main factor seems to have been the QT debate, with 27% saying it had made them more inclined to vote for Davis, against only 2% for DC (BBC take note).

The poll also shows that the "style vs substance" choice has registered strongly. DD scored well on substance and policy, but much less well on "style". In contrast 40% of members reckon DC has style but not much substance, 24% even saying he "seems lightweight".

So at last- after a month of battering- that momentum thing is moving back in DD's favour.

It's obviously not enough yet, but next week brings a series of head-to-head TV interviews for both candidates. Naturally the most keenly awaited will be "ordeal by Paxman", who despite his own immaculate coiffure, is not a known respecter of style politicos. It's the kind of test our new leader must be able to pass. Let's hope both candidates are up for it, and that reports of DC wimping out are wrong.

As the ever polite Mr Heffer says today:

"DC's Question Time performance showed how weak he is when confronted by members of the public in search of hard policies. More to the point - and as a PR man himself he will understand the truth of what I am about to say - if someone who is not a natural television performer, like David Davis, gets the better of him in a rather friendly and well-mannered debate, then the emergency services will have to be called out when Tony Blair and his machine get their hands on him.

Tories need to scrutinise him more closely - though since he has, unlike Mr Davis, so far refused to be grilled by Jeremy Paxman next week, I am afraid our chances to find out more might be severely limited."

Another BBC Classic

2005-11-04T18:16:00.000Z

Once the BBC's staff candidate got KO'd, they switched to DC. So following QT, they're peddling hard to contain the damage:

'The BBC News website has talked to three party members who watched the programme, to see what impact it had on their views - and how they would vote.'

Oh yes, and who would those three randomly selected members be?

'Carole Hegley... BEFORE- CAMERON... AFTER- CAMERON

Michael Jennings ... BEFORE - CAMERON.... AFTER- CAMERON

Jeff Hall ... BEFORE- UNDECIDED... AFTER- CAMERON'

Ah. So that's a clean sweep for Cameron then. Presumably there were no DD supporters, either before or after.

'David Lloyd ... BEFORE - UNDECIDED... AFTER- UNDECIDED'

Hang on....we realise you BBC types are all innumerate but we thought you said three.

All together now- ROLL ON PRIVATISATION.

Bloggers On QT

2005-11-04T12:10:00.000Z

The Blogosphere verdict is pretty well unanimous on the result. At Whatsthatsmell James says:

'It marked what appears to be a change in fortune for Our Man's campaign. It became clear as the show progressed: as much as the media may like Cameron for talking a good talk, Tories like Davis for walking a good walk...putting a stake in the ground and showing people what he's about plays well to the Tory faithful.

Cameron came off as if, in comparison, he would blow with whatever political wind may be blowing at the time. For all I know, he may be a great guy and an even greater politician. But he needs to work on the common touch and come across as more decisive. What the political and chattering classes may perceive as prudence in his reticence about specific policy, comes off as waffle to everyone else. Blair and Brown would make mince meat of him.'

At Non-Trivial Solutions Andrew says:

'Davis was exceptionally good. He started slowly, but was statesmanlike throughout. The most impressive parts for me were when he spoke on issues that clearly mean a great deal to him, such as his passionate defence of Iain Duncan Smith for his recent work on Social Justice. Davis is the man to win back the parts of the country that we haven't been speaking to in the last decade.

Cameron looked like a man coached to within an inch of his comfort zone, and it showed. Davis looked like a leader, a man on top of his game, ready and prepared for this occasion.'

Clive Davis is kinder to DC, but makes a similar point:

'Sorry to sound superficial, but the body-language contest was over in the first minute, as far as I was concerned: Davis looked relaxed and in command as he leaned against his lectern; Cameron sipped nervously from his glass, as if going in to pitch a big advertising account.

No knock-out blows. Davis had his best moment when he said this was no time to imitate Tony Blair. Cameron did reasonably well on the "why we need idealism" segment. More to the point, they both came across as human beings, which is a rare feat for Tory politicians.'

Maybe Fink was right- it was a victory for the Party.

Spin Cycle

2005-11-04T10:39:00.000Z

Following that bruising in Blackpool, we DD supporters have been somewhat in awe of DC's media machine. All we could really come up with was to point out that the spin was some way adrift of the reality.

So for us media innocents, it's interesting to see how the machine is handling DC's defeat last night. The strongly pro-DC Times carries the undiluted DC line:

'The Cameron camp, while conceding that Mr Davis had shaded the exchanges, were quietly satisfied that he had not landed a knockout blow. '

The line being you see, that to "win", DD actually needed a KO.

Hmm. The Indy is far less obliging:

'David Cameron's assured campaign to win the leadership of the Conservative Party was thrown off course last night... Mr Davis gained the upper hand by setting out his clear policy proposals, leaving Mr Cameron to say three times: "I agree with David."

Although Mr Davis's tax plans were savaged this week by Danny Finkelstein, a former Tory research director, as "shoddy", Mr Cameron failed to pull them apart. Instead, he insisted that cash available for tax cuts should be shared with higher spending on public services.

Mr Cameron, who had trounced Mr Davis with his speech at the party conference, was confidently expected to eclipse the shadow Home Secretary in the televised debate, but Mr Davis won.'

Actually Fink was on Newsnight last night, claiming it as a "victory for the Conservative Party"- slightly off-message, but at least he didn't say it was a victory for commonsense.

It all goes to show- you can fool some of the media all of the time, but you can't fool people like that bloke in the tweed suit who laid into DC last night:

"David, I have listened to you. You are good on your feet. You are good at waffle and you tell us what you would do, but you don't tell us how."

It's the beef you see. After a decade of spin, we're all getting mighty hungry.

Davis Wins QT

2005-11-04T07:50:00.000Z

When even Guido admits it, you know you're looking at a palpable hit. DD was relaxed and authoritative, and the substance of the man came through loud and clear. DC was by no means a disaster, but he looked uncomfortable from the start, and kept falling back on his prepared soundbites.

Of course, we've always known that DD is much better at this kind of thing than set piece platform speeches- the questions and audience interaction seem to energise him, as we saw more than once in Blackpool. But for us supporters, it was very good to see.

In terms of substance, DD covered all the bases: taxation, public services- reminding us in particular of his commitment to the victims of state failure- Europe, terrorism...the only area he ducked was drugs. Quite rightly, in our view.

Naturally, the BBC are whinging there wasn't any blood on the dias, but let's not lose any sleep over that. The crunchiest exchange was over Heir-to-Blair. DC tried to explain why he didn't want to commit to those "2009 Manifesto" commitments, and DD responded:

"What you are describing is an approach taken by Tony Blair in the mid-1990s... But the British public have seen three Blair parliaments. They are sick and tired of spin and the era of spin. Frankly, David, this is absolutely the worst moment for the Conservative party to imitate Tony Blair."

That hit the spot, as you could see from the audience reaction.

Overall, and despite rumours to the contrary, what came across was that experience really does count. DD was always comfortable- even relishing the occasion. He was in control wherever the questions went. In contrast, DC seemed always to revert to his prepared script. For a polished platform speech, word perfection is a plus: for a Q&A it comes across as lightweight and potentially evasive. As we've said many times before, DC's time will come. But he desperately needs more experience first.

So this morning we're feeling a lot more confident. Our Man has reminded everyone just why he remains our best choice.

DDfL.

Davis On Healthcare

2005-11-03T16:13:00.000Z

Over at Non-Trivial Solutions, Andrew has great post on DD's healthcare policy.

"Opening up government monopolies would allow the independent and voluntary sectors to offer services to the many, rather than the privileged few. Putting the State’s spending power in the hands of patients would give them unprecedented control. The natural forces of competition would drive up standards. And we would bring to an end the perverse consequence of State monopoly which has been to benefit the better off and the strong at the expense of poorest and the weak."

Andrew also picks up DD's close relationship with the Reform thinktank, who've done extensive work in this area, based around three key principles:

'1. Change the NHS mission statement. Instead of focusing on the health of the nation as a whole, the NHS should be driven by the needs of individual patients.

2. Liberate provision. The Government’s role should change from being a provider to a funder and regulator of healthcare. Targets and central controls should be abolished. Private providers should compete with NHS providers on equal terms.

3. Put spending power in the hands of patients. Individuals, not the government monopoly, should spend healthcare resources. In practice this requires a modern insurance-based healthcare system.'

Ahhh...Diddums

2005-11-03T10:47:00.000Z

Ali Campbell spent much of yesterday touring the media spluttering with righteous indignation, and lambasting them for reducing politics to a media frenzy. It was an extraordinary performance, and pots and kettles certainly didn't do it justice. But- deep breaths- let's park that.

On Newsnight, Matthew Parris commented on Ali's performance, recalling that when the Major government used to complain about similar media excesses, Campbell was wont to say "Ahhh....diddums".

Now there's no denying we DD supporters have had our own issues with the media, but as everyone keeps saying, complaining about it is like complaining about the weather. It's there, so deal with it.

But the Blunkett saga shows just how treacherous media celebrity can be. It sucked in poor old Blunkers, span his head around, and eventually spat him out. Just like they're now doing with Tony. It's taken a while admittedly. But the Big Story has switched direction. For is it not written- lo, those that live by the media shall surely perish by it.

And the moral of the story? Simply that we Tories better not choose our leader based on media celebrity.

Return Of The Green And Scaly Option

2005-11-03T09:32:00.000Z

We've posted before about the Green And Scaly Option- "Do you want to agree with me, or do you want to go G&S?"

It's always been a great favourite of Tones', and DC is now a regular user. This morning he responds to Simon Heffer's accusation that he has no principles:

"The choice underlying the Conservative leadership contest is becoming clearer every day: do we repeat the mistakes of the past and consign our party to permanent opposition? Or do we learn from our three election defeats, change our party and put ourselves in a position to change our country? Do we want to lose again, or do we want to win?"

Well, Dave...that's an excellent question. And it's exactly why we need DDfL.

But he is right that we are being offered a serious choice here. DD is offering us a clear policy agenda to deliver a revitalised economy, vastly improved public services, and more effective support for Britain's vulnerable. And he is explaining exactly how he would deliver these things- including lower taxes, and choice and competition reforms in education and health.

In contrast, DC is saying "trust me". He and his lieutenants keep repeating that he is a genuine Conservative who believes in Conservative principles. But he doesn't want to commit himself to anything too specific in policy terms. And he's making it very clear that he will do whatever "recasting" he deems necessary to get elected.

So there is a clear choice. It's between a bold and relevant restatement of those timeless Tory principles applied to modern problems, and...well, actually, we're still not at all clear.

Fiscal Fink Funk

2005-11-02T20:24:00.000Z

Under the SDP knockabout headline "A David Davis guide to fiscal strategy: two and two make . . . um, er . . .", Danny Finkelstein uses his Times column to lay into DD's policies for managing tax and spend. Well, he doesn't really lay into the policies as such- more a pantomime version of them.

We've already posted at length on why DD's right and DC wrong on this, but let's quickly pick up Fink's main points:

a) "Public service reform...in the short to medium term, and certainly during the period covered by the Davis tax plan, it is very likely to cost money rather than save it". Depends entirely how you do it- the highly successful Swedish Schools reforms ( now promised by DD for us) actually set the value of the education voucher transferable to the independent sector at 85% of the pupil cost in the state sector.

b) "By eccentrically deciding to write his March 2014 Budget in October 2005, David Davis is unable to [calculate how much he needs to reduce borrowing]. So he promises to return in tax cuts every penny he saves. This is — how can I put it? — not a very good idea." Fink ignores two things. First, DD's policy is first and foremost about adopting a rule to govern spending- the specific numbers just happen to drop out of it. Second, all governments with any sense do medium term fiscal projections (see HMT's Budget). In fact, as we've said elsewhere, the idea of tinkering with fiscal balances on a short-term annual basis is these days seen as- how can I put it?- not a very good idea. Even Gordo grasped that with his Golden Rules (although admittedly he's never quite played the game honestly).

c) Er...that's it. Fink entirely ignores the point about tax cuts stimulating growth and therefore tax revenues and therefore public spending. Ah well.

It's very interesting where the SDP diaspora have landed. The LibDems have got Chuck, Labour have got Lord "Policy Wonker"Adonis, and we've got Fink. It's a funny old world.

O/T 3

2005-11-02T10:34:00.000Z

So why aren't the media using the SLEAZE word?

UPDATE: Useful overview of Labour sleaze here.

Davis On Europe

2005-11-02T08:05:00.000Z

On the day DD talks about Europe to the Sun, over at Road To Euro Serfdom the Serf has an excellent overview of why Davis is right.

'Only a Conservative government that puts taming the EU monster at the centre of its programme, can be considered worthy of the title Conservative. I believe that David Davis is the man that can do just that...

Because to be a Conservative, means that you have to favour transparency, accountability and freedom of choice. David Davis is experienced enough to understand that these are not on offer in the European Union, and he has the track record to prove it.'

And DD's Sun interview underlines the importance he attaches to the whole issue. He promises to negotiate a major repatriation of powers, topped and tailed by "double-lock" referenda:

'He argued that many people did not believe Britain had control over its own destiny on major issues, said the nation needed to regain control over fishing, asylum, immigration and social policy.

"We will lay out exactly what we want and hold a referendum to see if people approve. I have no doubt they will."

He would then go to the Brussels negotiating table and at the end put the outcome to a second referendum:

"That would give us the authority to look the European Commission in the eye and say this is the view of the British people."

The proposals put forward by Mr Davis included a new British Bill of Rights with priority over European human rights laws.'

It is radical- no doubt about that. As incredulous leftie Europhile Mr Naughty has just gasped: "but...but...this is the most radical foreign policy in a generation!"

The question the rest of us are asking is why have we had to wait so long? Didn't anyone tell the others thay could do this?

O/T Don't These Blighters Get Paid Enough?

2005-11-01T15:23:00.000Z

A comment on my (slightly) O/T Blunkett post reckoned our MPs have to moonlight because they don't get paid enough.

But take a look at the above (MEPs being paid at their respective national MP rates). So our MPs are the third best paid in Europe.

WTF?

Why Davis Is Right On Tax And Spend

2005-11-01T11:14:00.000Z

It has become a defining issue in the leadership race. DD has set out a clear plan to reduce the state's share of GDP by 2% over the next parliament, equivalent to £38bn pa by the final year. DC has responded by saying it's too early to give such commitments, and all too predictably, his lieutenants have been scurrying around rubbishing DD.

But DD is right and DC is wrong. And to understand why, it's helpful to separate the economics from the politics.

On the economics, many recent studies have shown that higher taxes depress growth and wealth creation. The OECD estimated that a 10 percentage point increase in the tax/GDP ratio reduces trend growth by about 0.5% pa. Reform reckons the impact may be even greater, once you take account of both disincentive effects from higher taxes, and the low (actually negative) productivity growth in the public sector.

Higher taxes make us all poorer, and as DD has emphasised, over the medium-term, lower growth actually means less money available for public services.

Ah, but- say the DC camp- while all that may be true, you can't make such commitments now because nobody knows what state the economy will be in when we finally get to inspect those famous "books". As George himself says, drawing on all his experience: "It is in my view a misjudgement, and indeed David Davis, he's been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I think he above anyone, would want to see the public accounts before he sets out detailed tax policies."

But of course, DD isn't setting out "detailed tax policies". Instead, he's committing himself to a budget rule, Reform's "Growth Rule", which calls for the growth of public spending to be set below that of trend GDP. It is an additional Golden Rule, which plugs the yawning gap in Gordo's version.

Why do we need a spending rule? Quite simply, because all of our experience tells us that politicians and money- our money- are not a safe mix. We need rules because political discretion can't be trusted. Politicians of all persuasions find it much, much easier to increase spending rather than cut it, so we get a tax and spend ratchet. With a rule, they will be forced to actually find and implement those notorious "efficiency savings", rather than just commissioning another report or ten which merely rearrange the deckchairs.

Just as the seventies showed political discretion was hopeless at "fiscal fine tuning" (hence the abandonment of Keynesianism), and the eighties and nineties showed it was hopeless at monetary management (hence Bank independence), now the noughties are showing (er...reshowing) it's hopeless at managing public spending. If we can't get the politicians removed completely, we need clear simple rules to rein in their excesses.

So much for the economics: it's clearly right for Britain. But what about the politics? Forget Britain: would it help get us re-elected?

Well...lower taxes, higher growth...you'd have to figure that would win a few votes. But of course, there's that concern about public services. Wouldn't it simply confirm all those scare stories about Tories destroying the NHS, and therefore lose us yet another one?

The first point is that we really don't have to accept such an outrageous "narrative" (or pack of lies, as we might call it).

For one thing, this plan does not cut public spending. In fact it allows it to carry on growing at an expected 1.5% pa in real terms (ie 1% pa less than trend GDP growth). Certainly it puts pressure on the system to deliver value for money, but any suggestions that it is slash and burn are patent nonsense.

Moreover, we have the time to emphasise and re-emphasise the message DD has already given: lower taxes mean faster growth, and therefore over the medium-term potentially more money for public services- as in Ireland. We have at least three years to make the case.

Ah, yes, but...no, but yes, but...what about the polls? Don't they show that hospitals and schools are the number one issue of concern, and tax is only number 437?

Hmm...true. But, first, polls have never shown people wanting tax cuts at the expense of teachers and nurses etc- even back in the eighties when they were voting for tax-cutting Maggie, or in 92 when they voted against tax-raising Kinnock. It just hasn't been the sort of thing decent people have wanted to own up to. They find some other rationale for voting in tax cutters (and after Gordo's forthcoming post-Election tax grab- his third- they'll have an even stronger incentive for doing so).

Second, DD's spending plan is part of a much broader public/private policy package that includes radical choice/competition reforms for public services. And as the definitive Anthony Wells points out, polls do show growing support for that. So there is absolutely no need to allow ourselves to be painted into that "one-dimensional obsessive tax-cutters" corner.

Finally, we're not operating in a vacuum. By the time of the next election the country will have had 13 years of rising taxes and failing services- 13 years of Labour misrule. Yes, we know all about not relying on rescue by Labour bungling or a recession, but tax by tax, disappointment by disappointment, Britain will once again be looking for a real alternative.

Firm control of tax and spend has always been a core Tory proposition. Only DD has spelled out how he would deliver on it, and how it can be combined with radical public service reform package so as to offer both a revitalised economy and a better deal for Britain's vulnerable.

Timeless Conservative principles applied to the problems of modern Britain.

Time To Get Tough On Conflicts

2005-11-01T08:22:00.000Z

Let's be frank- we've never expected much in the way of personal probity from politicos. Up there in the fetid Westminster bubble, the temptations are many and the egos gargantuan. But some of the things we've stumbled across doing this blog have made us realise that we have been far too trusting and naive.

One recurring issue has been the potential conflicts of interest that inevitably arise when MPs take paid outside employment. We criticised both Ken and DC on that score, and were quite surprised when others reckoned it was perfectly OK- helpful even.

Well, this morning "Blunkett-The Return" is reaching the final reel. And guess what. It's exactly the same story all over again.

It's the dosh you see. According to Nick Robinson on R4 Today this morning, Blunkett needed to top up his funds following that expensive paternity case (I heard NR say it, although mysteriously the recording has yet to appear on the Today website...so, er, hope Robinson isn't in any kind of difficulty...)

Blunkett clearly has to go, but just who do these people think they are?

It's time to ban all outside paid employment for our MPs. If they want to be MPs, then fine. But they owe it to us to give it their complete attention. And not to take any more pieces of silver from that great raft of chancers and dealers who want to buy influence at Westminster.

And just for the record, DD has no outside paid employment.

Update: it's now 10 am and the Today website still hasn't loaded the Robinson piece. Maybe good old Nick is up in the DG's office taking six of the best.

Update 2: it's now 10.30 am, and the NR piece is finally up: "It's a difficult thing to say, but let's say it...Why did he seek money?...Why did he want this shareholding? Why did he give it to his sons? I believe he did it because he had spent their inheritance [on the paternity suit] and he wanted to get it back for them." As simple as that.

Davis Pledges Swedish Model

2005-11-01T07:25:00.000Z

DD has set out more detail on his school choice agenda:

"Some people say we need to build on the Blair Education reforms. This would be building on sand. The so-called reforms are just a fraud, a collection of soundbites and gimmicks that add up to very little. We need our own radical Conservative education policy

I have already said that I want 20 new grammar schools in the poorer areas of our big cities, to give young people living on estates the chance of a challenging academic education. But I want to go much further than this. Every family deserves the ability to choose, not just those who can afford it.

So I would introduce a programme of School Choice on the Swedish model. Parents would be given the power and the money to choose a school that suited their child. I would start this policy in the cities, where the problems are worse and where the numbers who need rescuing are greatest.

Giving parents choice is pointless unless they have schools between which they can choose. So I would also allow new groups to set up schools within the state system. Charities, Churches, educational groups, private companies—all have ideas which may appeal to parents and allow the full range of educational opportunities to be available to all our children. "

Faced with similar education problems to ours, Sweden introduced its revolutionary school choice reforms in the early 1990s. In particular, the reforms allowed parents to choose independent schools, with the state paying 85% of the pupil cost at state schools, and with no top-up fees.

There has been huge growth in the number of independent schools, run and owned by a wide range of suppliers including teacher and parent cooperatives, for profit companies and not-for-profit organisations. And standards have improved in both independent and state schools. (For a full analysis of the Swedish experience and its application to Britain, see this paper from Reform.)

DD's bold announcement should be welcomed by everyone with a serious interest in improving education for the vast majority of British children, whose parents can't afford to opt out of state failure. Timeless Conservative principles applied to the problems of modern Britain.

And it is yet another example of DD spelling out exactly what he would do as leader. Substance over style.

Enviro-Storm

2005-10-31T21:15:00.000Z

Further to our last post, it seems that DC may have inadvertantly blundered into an enviro-storm.

You will recall he promised "a carbon-neutral campaign for the leadership. With the help of the Carbon-Neutral Company, we are planting enough trees to counteract the additional carbon emissions generated by our campaign.”

Sounded pretty neat to us. But then we run a couple of gas guzzlers, never recycle our yoghurt pots, and don't know anything about all that green stuff.

It actually turns out the whole deal is known as "Celebrity Tree Planting", and besides Dave, it has attracted a wide circle of committed eco warriors:

Dido, Coldplay, Pink Floyd and the Foo Fighters all have albums that are said to be carbon-neutral, as was the last UK tour by the Rolling Stones. To counteract the 11 tonnes (!) of carbon dioxide emitted every year by Leonardo DiCaprio’s cars, homes and travel, he has established forests in Mexico, India, North America and Europe.

Other Future Forests clients include Lulu, Julian Lennon, Mis-teeq, Sugababes, Sting and Shaggy. “I like the cheekiness of sending people bills for their carbon emissions,” the company quotes BritArt bad boy, Damien Hirst, as saying. “Tree-f***ing-mendous.”

The trouble is, it turns out that many real environmentalists think the whole thing is phony. Mandy Haggith of Worldforests says:

“Trees are not magic painkillers that can remove the morning-after effects of fossil- fuel abuse. Marketing schemes that claim tree planting can ‘neutralise’ fossil-fuel use are misleading and may legitimise behaviour that actually makes climate change worse.”

Other campaigners describe such schemes as "greenwash," "a phoney climate fix, and a dangerous illusion," and false "absolution of carbon sins." Friends of the Earth say: “To deal with the increased carbon dioxide emissions we face over the next half century, you would have to completely cover Europe – from the Atlantic to the Ural mountains – with trees.”

What's even worse, the company that comes in for most criticism is Future Forests, a company that has now changed its name. To the Carbon-Neutral Company. The very company that is now planting all DC's leadership trees.

Hmm. Maybe it would be safest for DC just to stop emitting carbon for the duration of the campaign.

The Blair Succession (cont)

2005-10-31T17:37:00.000Z

Stung by all those policy-lite jibes, DC has announced his climate change strategy:

'We will lead internationally on climate change, and to strive for wider acceptance of the science and the steps needed to combat the problem.We will look beyond Kyoto and promote an international dialogue to reach agreement...'

Oh no...wait...I've inadvertantly quoted from the Labour Election Manifesto. It's just so hard to tell. As the aghast posters at ConservativeHome will testify:

'No, Cameron, NO! This is DIRE!

The commission bit is especially disappointing. It shows that Cameron is just a gesture-politician. We've already had Osborne's 'commission on flat tax', setting out a 'direction' which is just as quickly repudiated. This is even sillier.The problem with these wannabe vote-catchers is that they want to be popular with a tiny coterie of metropolitan bien pensants, and really don't understand the modern world at all. This is the worst possible time for Blair-Lite - just when the country wises up!

Some of us are trying very hard to come onside with our lovely new leader, so this is a sad day: our lovely new leader has revealed himself to be a fool. I think I preferred 'vague'. ( buxtehude )

Still, this bit is original DC- even Tone didn't do it:

"I am starting with a carbon-neutral campaign for the leadership. With the help of the Carbon-Neutral Company, we are planting enough trees to counteract the additional carbon emissions generated by our campaign.”

Nice one, Dave.

You know, sometimes I really don't think I get it at all.

PS A "well, well, well, isn't it a small world" margin note- the CEO of the Carbon-Neutral Company is one Jonathan Shopley. He previously worked for Arthur D Little, and while there he evidently advised various multinationals on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Among them was the controversial BAT, where as regular readers will recall, the non-exec with responsibility for CSR was...Ken Clarke. And they got together at least once, with Jonathan apparently advising Ken on how to make BAT more competitive.

Do ciggies create carbon emissions?

The Blair Succession

2005-10-31T10:16:00.000Z

New Labour insider Mrs Marr gives us a further insight into Tony's troubled mind:

'The message is going forth from Downing Street that he would prefer anyone but Gordon Brown to be his successor - and yes, that may even include a moderate, centre-right David Cameron, who seems to be emerging as an identikit Blair and has privately described himself as "Blair's heir"... Is it evidence that when Blair talks of legacy, and the need for a new consensus, he is now looking beyond Labour?'

And she reflects on those extraordinary events surrounding last week's education debate:

'The radical nature of the education white paper...is causing great dismay on the [Labour]backbenches. Cameron's instant decision to support it, at least in principle, may turn out to be a defining moment in the politics of the third term. If the left in parliament mobilises against the bill, supported by the teaching unions, and the Tories help to rescue it, then we have hard evidence of the Blair-Cameron alliance. Remember, for the first time we have a Labour prime minister who does not need to destroy his opposite number. Blair knows he won't be fighting Cameron.'

I have a very bad feeling about this...

Look, we've always known Tone is a Tory toff with a perfectly normal loathing for trade Maggie and her ilk, but should he really be choosing our next leader?

Plus- although I almost hesitate to mention this given our overwhelming desire to get re-elected at any price- in a world of perpetual Blairism, just how are we going to grip the real issues of the day?

Blairism says most political issues are really technical problems that can be sorted out by applying the best brains of the day, and letting them come up with one of those "evidence based" solutions. Education, health, crime...you name it. And judging from DC's statements, that's pretty well what he believes too.

We don't share that rosy view. We think the real business of politics is about making decisions where the evidence is not clearcut, including of course, deciding winners and losers. Which is precisely why governments should be small.

The Blair Succession.

Is that what you want?

Cos that's what you're going to get....unless, that is, we fill in those ballot papers the right way.

Bloggers For Davis 36

2005-10-30T19:16:00.000Z

As you all know, at DDfL we eschew negative campaigning (well, we try anyway). But over at Conservatives Against Cameron's 'NewLabourisation' they have no such hang-ups.

Normally, of course,we'd feel disbarred from drawing attention to their commentary- most incisive though it is. But today it is with a glad heart that we pass on their positive endorsement of DD:

'David Davis is a man of integrity, decency, substance and principle and would be a clear antidote to the poisonous New Labour government this country has endured for the past eight years.'

Hear, hear.

'David Cameron's policy-lite, substance-free (unless you believe those allegations!), vague, generalised, empty, dumbed-down brand of plastic politics would be little more than a continuation of the Blairite, NewLabouresque style of politics and governance that has polluted the political atmosphere of the United Kingdom in recent years. Surely the people of this fine country deserve something different?'

Oh, drat. The last bit must have slipped in here by accident. Sorry about that.

BFD Weekly Round-Up 1

2005-10-30T07:11:00.000Z

For the remainder of the contest we're going to run a Bloggers For Davis Weekly Round-Up (idea entirely ripped off from Tim Worstall via Eu-Serf at Once More) .

It's been a busy week, and we're getting a clearer sense of the policy issues beneath the beauty contest. Gary Munro set the scene with his meaty post on The Conservative Party’s Blairite Tendency, and asks "why would the public vote for Labour-lite when they can have the Real Thing?"

Simon Lloyd picked up the same theme, arguing that DD will stand on his own agenda, and that "a lack of policy commitments will be Mr Cameron's Achilles heel in the leadership contest".

DD's announcement of a clear tax cutting agenda brought much favourable comment. Peter C Glover puts it in a broader policy context: "Davis is quite right to spell out what a proper Conservative Party agenda should look like - and it will, thankfully, be nothing like a domestic and European New Labour one. But the promise of substantial tax cuts...needs to be accompanied by a phalanx of co-ordinated policies which collectively reflect the need for the country...to take greater individual responsibility..."

Still on the tax theme, Steve at Village Hampden gives DD's plan the thumbs-up, and provides some historic context: "If Cameron thinks that cutting taxes is not such a vote winner, let him look at the causes of the American and French Revolutions. The Boston Tea Party was not about whether the milk should go in first, and the gabelle was not a health issue. Let him also look at what sparked off the English Civil War: ship money. Even further back, let him look at the origins of England itself. Though it is commonly said that the Britons were driven by the Saxons westward into what became Wales, it was really the influence of their governments that was driven westward and confined to Wales. The peasants mostly stayed where they were and had the benefit of much lower taxes, not having Arthur's cavalry to pay for." Not many people know that.

DD's announcement that he establish 20 new grammar schools also drew support. Clive Davis says: "David Davis seems to be fizzing with ideas...Abolishing grammar schools was one of the most outrageous acts of public vandalism of recent times."

The role of the media in our election is something we've fumed about ourselves, and James Hellyer spells it out: "It seems clear to me that the power of the media is so great that its own hyping of a candidate can achieve the apotheosis of the recipient and create the poll lead. The thing that is dishonest is the way the media pretends that the reaction to their agitprop is spontaneous." Yes, it may be like complaining about the weather, but we members need to see through the short-term media hype.

Finally, we've been delighted to welcome our new Bloggers For Davis, including Political Thinker, Fox Blogger, Sterling Times, and Darlington Tory.

Would You Adam And Eve It?

2005-10-29T17:04:00.000+01:00

Organ of record Private Eye (not online) says:

'With perfect timing, early editions of the Evening Standard on the day of the second Tory leadership ballot led with the story "Gay Smears and Me, by Tory Hopeful"- the Tory in question being Dr Liam Fox.

Who was behind the smear? "I know for certain that people in the Davis camp were responsible for putting round these false stories," Fox later told the Mail on Sunday. His campaign manager John Hayes directly accused Davis's henchman Derek Conway of planting the story on the Standard.

Not so. The "dossier" on which the story was based had been compiled by dirty-tricks wallahs in the Labour Party- who passed it to David Cameron's lieutenants, who in turn gave it to the Standard. The Cameroonies were determined to prevent a run-off with Fox, who was feared to have more support in constituency associations.

For all their modernising open-necked cool, the Notting Hill set are still adept at the more traditional arts of politics. The queen bee of the set, Rachel Whetstone, was behind last Wednesday's report by BBC political editor Nick Robinson that the runner-up in Thursday's poll would drop out of the race to allow Cameron a "coronation". Alas, what was intended as a self-fulfilling prophecy had the opposite effect: it infuriated Davis and stiffened his resolve to fight on.'

Now, let me see...Rachel Whetstone...Rachel Whetstone... We know she was "Michael Howard's Miss Moneypenny" but surely we read somewhere that:

'Mr Cameron has done much to ensure that he has a team of all the talents and dilute the enmity towards the Notting Hill set. Not many people know that Rachel Whetstone (Michael Howard's former Queen Bee), for example has had nothing to do with the Cameron campaign, after a falling out over a personal matter.'

Hmm...then again, I suppose we know that:

'George Osborne's closest confidants are Rightwing Times columnist Daniel Finkelstein, Tory adviser Rachel Whetstone, advertising guru Steve Hilton, former Times columnist turned Tory MP Michael Gove and David Cameron.'

Tsk. I don't know. It's all too much for my simple brain.

Davis Reinstates The Ladder

2005-10-29T11:08:00.000+01:00

Speaking this morning, DD pledges to establish 20 new grammar schools in our big cities where state education failure is at its worst:

"I want to create an Opportunity Society. To make that a reality we need people who start near the bottom of the pile to able to make it to the top. Good schools are absolutely crucial in that process. In particular, poor children need to be able to receive the best academic education—the sort that better off parents have the power to demand for their children.

One of the main reasons why social mobility is declining under this Government is the disappearance of grammar schools from most parts of the country. The areas where this creates the worst social barriers are our big cities. In many of these you find a concentration of social deprivation which gives teachers an almost impossible challenge. The schools themselves need to be able to focus better, and part of this focus should be the ability to offer academic excellence.

So as Prime Minister I would extend the range of choice available to parents and children in our big cities, I would, as an initial step, create 20 new grammar schools in the big cities of England, so that children from all backgrounds can benefit from the best academic education."

We've posted about this before, and all we can say now is- at last.

Speaking For Britain

2005-10-29T07:06:00.000+01:00

"When people start to think of this as not a Big Brother phone-in, but actually a choice about who should be the next Prime Minister, they will start to make a judgment on the serious issues. The question we are putting to the Tory Party is: What sort of country do you want in four or 10 years' time? I happen to think that will favour me."

So said DD yesterday. He used a major speech and a series of interviews to reiterate some of his key propositions. He again stressed his intention to help the victims of state failure:

"...the people on council estates who get robbed twice as many times as people elsewhere; people in the inner cities who get poor quality education; poorer people who get the worst health outcomes.

The problem we have to overcome is that a lot of these people see us as not interested in them or their lives. We have to show we are concerned about people at the bottom of the pile."

And he zoned in on Browns' pension tax grab: "...one of the great scandals of the last decade. We have to look how to put that right." Which of course, his "Growth Rule" would enable him to do.

Davis is spelling out the policy agenda that Britain needs: how we Tories will clear up the mess after thirteen years of New Labour misrule, using traditional Conservative tools to tackle both our economic and social issues.

But there's no doubt it's an uphill battle. As today's DT/YouGov poll reiterates, DD is some way behind DC in the leadership stakes. Among Tory voters, they reckon he's on 16% against DC's 56%.

Yet the poll also shows that among voters as a whole, neither candidate has really grabbed the imagination. Anthony King comments:

'YouGov's findings make it clear neither Tory leadership contender has so far acquired a clearly defined image in voters' minds. Opinions about both men, where they exist at all, tend to be lightly formed. Unexpected events could easily change people's minds.

YouGov's findings are also a reminder of the size of the electoral challenge that will face whichever candidate wins the leadership contest. Many Conservatives have the feeling at the moment that things are moving their way but YouGov still finds no evidence that in the country at large - as distinct from inside the Westminster village - things are moving at all.'

The plain fact remains: to win next time we're going to need much more than an agreeable telegenic sparkle. Sorry, but the electorate just ain't that dumb. No matter how uncomfortable it feels- and it does- we need to win some policy arguments. We need to speak for Britain.

As Davis said yesterday:

"We must recognise that controversy is our friend, not our enemy. If you stand up again and again for what you think, people begin to realise that you really mean it."

Flip-Flop Award

2005-10-28T19:07:00.000+01:00

Over at ToryLeadership Tim has awarded DC a pair of flip-flops for changing his position on the Davis tax and spend plan.

This morning the DC camp welcomed the plan, saying there was "a lot of common ground between them on this issue." But a few hours later, DC himself said "I do not think it is sensible to outline such proposals four years before an election. We cannot know the exact state the economy will be in."

Wonder what happened?

Apart that is, from the obvious point that the plan seems to have played very well, and has underlined DC's own lack of beef in this area.

We've Tried It All Before...

2005-10-28T15:56:00.000+01:00

Looking round the blogs at Tory reaction to DD's Growth Rule/tax cuts plan, one widespread response is that we tried the same thing in 2001 and 2005. And...well, it didn't quite do the trick. So why would it work this time?

There are several points to make:

a) We didn't actually try very hard. In 2005 we offered a total cut of a measly £4bn, equivalent to a packet of Rolos a week. That was even worse than 2001 when we offered £8bn, equivalent to at least...er, two packets of Rolos. Davis is offering £38bn, equivalent to a wagon load of Quality Street for every hard-working family in the land.

b) In both 2001 and 2005, we talked about raising the money through best efforts economy drives. Trouble is, every politician since Ugg The Hairy has promised that, and nobody believes it. Which is why DD is offering a Spending Rule, rather than wibbly-wobbly political discretion.

c) The political landscape is changing. Recent polls show growing support for cutting taxes and spending. And after Gordo hits us once again with his fiscal rhythm stick (regular big whacks in each post-Election budget), this support will balloon.

d) To be effective, we need to hammer home the message from now all the way through to the Election: not just drop it out of the blue a couple of months before the poll. DD offers us a clear tax and spend policy- good for individuals and national wealth creation- that we can lodge in the national consciousness long before 2009.

Enough of timidity. As Nick Herbert said on the World At One, a clear stance on low taxation should be a core commitment for any centre-right party anywhere in the world.

Bloggers For Davis 35

2005-10-28T11:12:00.000+01:00

New Bloggers For Davis continue to join us. Seeker after truth, the Darlington Tory, says:

"Under the Governance of New Labour, lying, hollow promises, spin and a friendly media face has become the norm...

The question is do we and the electorate as a whole want substance in our politics or do we want it to degenerate to a very poor gossip column/soap opera...

Why DD? He is not an apologist for being a Conservative, he has never tried to emulate nu-labour, he believes in the fundamental principals that make the Tories what they are, small government, low taxation and most importantly FREEDOM."

There are two especially significant points about the Darlington Tory. First, not to put too fine a point on it for those within the M25, Darlington is up North. And second, as he himself says, he is a prodigal son who is returning to us because of DD. Let's not let him down, or the thousands of others like him.

Together we really can get shot of Labour.

Davis Tax Cuts

2005-10-28T07:04:00.000+01:00

At last- some real beef. £38 billion pa tax cuts- £1200 for each family- by the end of the next Parliament.

As we've posted previously, his plan is based on adopting Reform's Growth Rule, ensuring that public spending does not rise faster than the trend rate of growth in the economy. He says:

“We need to move from a spending agenda to a growth agenda, where government is focused on achieving value for taxpayers’ money and public spending discipline ensures that there is room to lower the tax burden.

My approach doesn’t involve cuts. We are talking about how fast to grow spending. On the contrary, those who argue for a faster rate of spending growth have to address the question of where the resources will come from.

The political sands are shifting. Gordon Brown’s high tax, high spending experiment is running into trouble. Every independent forecaster is predicting that his sums do not add up and that he will have to put up taxes again. It is also increasingly clear that spending without reform has wasted taxpayers’ money by failing to deliver sufficient improvements in public services.

We will make the gravest mistake if we seek to ape the New Labour project at the moment when it is seen to have failed. People are yearning for an alternative to New Labour, not a repetition of it.

The Conservative Party has a choice. We can either continue to accept the terms of the debate set by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, with ever higher spending and taxes. Or we can set a distinctive Conservative agenda for the future.

We can either join the ranks of centre right parties around the world, such as the Republicans in the United States and the Liberals in Australia, which have won by cutting taxes. Or we can remain frozen in the headlights of a centre left agenda, and continue to lose.”

And for those who say voters are still prepared to pay those yet higher taxes to get those services, that's not what recent polls are telling us.

And too early to "write the manifesto"? The lesson from the last Election is that voters didn't actually believe we would cut taxes- to win next time we have to get the message over clearly right now.

Britain is crying out for an alternative, not a half-hearted repro.

Focus On Substance

2005-10-27T21:17:00.000+01:00

James Hellyer looks again at the media's role in our leadership contest, and in particular over the battle of the Conference speeches. But as James points out, somehow we members have got to see though the media froth:

'We need to use what time we have to look at what the candidates stand for and what they want to do. Those should be grounds for selecting a leader, not the directions of the media. The media can build a candidate up, but they can later knock him down. '

So as the candidates set out their policies, we need to pay close attention. It's all very well saying it's too early to write the next manifesto, but we need more than high level generalities about Five Major Challenges.

We're disappointed at DC's lack of policy content today on the economic challenge, particularly on tax and spend where there is such a sharp contrast between DD's clear commitments and his own much fuzzier approach. He's done nothing to defuzz it: indeed, the kindest thing Tim Montgomerie could find to say about today's effort was to call it "triangulation". And we thought that was a term of abuse reserved for New Labour.

We keenly await DD's reported tax cutting plan tomorrow. We fully expect that to be real substance.

Bloggers For Davis 34

2005-10-27T19:25:00.000+01:00

We're tickled puce to welcome the outstanding Sterling Times as another new BFD.

The Times describes itself as 'in celebration of "Uncool Britannia". It's the site where etiquette is still more important than political correctness.'

As you will know, it covers everything from pirate radio, to decimalisation, to The Best Of British Pluck.

My guess is that it's not widely read in W11. But that shouldn't stop you.

Making It Happen

2005-10-27T08:35:00.000+01:00

From the student Newspaper of Warwick University.

"A chap called Ian Black had the idea to set up the station, but he came to me and thought I was the kind of guy who could make this wild idea come to life. So I had to blag equipment off people, I got the University to help us, got the BBC to help us, went up to the only other student radio station up in York and just persuaded loads of people to take part. "

David Davis talking about the creation of the university radio station.

You see, this is a man who makes things happen. He could do it in his student days, its part of his make up.

Personally I see capability as the most important talent of any politician. Combine that with a set of sound principles and you have the makings of great success.

Bloggers For Davis 33

2005-10-26T14:48:00.000+01:00

We're delighted to welcome the Fox Blogger. He says:

'I've ummed and ahhed as to who to back now that Foxy is out of the running. Certainly, Cameron has a lot going for him... And yet... do we really want to have as our leader a man who has only been in Parliament for 4 years, who has only been at the despatch box 4 times, who seems to have presented little or no solid detail on what he would do as Prime Minister? Frankly, we need to ask a simply question - yes, he is "Golden Boy", but what has he done?

So, instead what has Davis done? Well, his website says "As Shadow Home Secretary, he has forced the resignations of two Government Ministers and highlighted the chaos in the Home Office over crime and immigration & asylum." Pretty good start! But more than that, he has worked his way up from, literally, the gutter (no offence David)... He has no desire to simple mimic the Blairite Labour Party, but wants to clearly define and communicate modern conservatism, a belief in the uniqueness, ability and possibility of every individual.

So - there we are - short and sweet - Davis has both the experience and the vision to shape our country's future.'

Fox Blogger joins BFD.

Bloggers For Davis 32

2005-10-26T10:39:00.000+01:00

The uncompromising Gary Monro has an excellent post spelling out just why we need to break with Blairism:

'To wake the British people from their complacency - apathy, to be more accurate - the Party’s leader must attack government failure at all levels and make people aware of just how truly awful Labour is. The Conservative Party is not there to be a better version of Labour, it’s there to be a clean break from Labour.

No true patriot can look at what Blair has done to the country we love and then talk about what Blair has achieved. Blair’s achievements, if you want to call them that, amount to the ruination of a nation.

And as we’ve all said before, why would the public vote for Labour-lite when they can have the Real Thing?'

Yeah...In Your Dreams

2005-10-26T09:56:00.000+01:00

We've said it before, but the media guys around DC are...well, brilliant is the only word for it.

Having masterminded the has-he-hasn't-he drugs teaser, they've now come up with "In Dave's Bed In The Buffy":

"TORY leadership favourite David Cameron once had a brief encounter with a naked TV actress he found in his bed, it was revealed last night.

The Shadow Education Secretary walked in on stunning American blonde Stacey Travis after she had just taken off all her clothes in a London flat they were sharing."

You just can't make up stuff like this. Or can you?

Keep it real. Yeah?

Breaking With Blairism

2005-10-26T08:38:00.000+01:00

"I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched soundbites. They are then pickled into a sloppy mush, a slurry, and you go through the years flip-flopping in that, outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a bloated Health Service hiring PR consultants to scuttle round explaining why there's no money left to treat patients. I am telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling to short term egos--you can't play politics with people's health or with people's services or with their after-tax incomes" (malfunctioning Blair prototype).

Let us therefore give thanks that DD will draw a line under all this. As he said yesterday:

"I’m the candidate with a plan to change Britain and to improve lives, and with the substance, experience and resilience to see that plan through.

We need a stronger economy and a better society - lower taxes, better schools and hospitals, stronger policing, more local choice and control, an Open Europe. I will use conservative beliefs and ideas to make the economy stronger and society better - and fight for Britain's battlers beyond the metropolitan south.

The choice for Britain is indeed between real change and more of the same. To accept the Blair policy agenda really would be more of the same. To challenge it and implement conservative beliefs and ideas in government would be real change.

That is the way to give everyone in Britain the opportunity to excel in life. That is an ambition worth fighting for."

Substance, experience, and resilience. As we contemplate the mounting wreckage of Blairism, let's try to keep that firmly in mind.

All In A Night's Work

2005-10-25T21:43:00.000+01:00

In the course of my duties, I was proceeding in a Northerly direction along one of Blogtown's quiet back streets when I came across a most unfortunate eventuality.

I was accosted by a man who appeared to be in a state of some distress, and who kept shouting "Cameron to be leader!". Having calmed him with my nightstick, he confided:

"Martin Cakebread raises interesting points about the future direction of not only our children, but our general attitude in the UK to work, to the future, keeping positive and most importantly working together."

Upon enquiring his name, he told me it was...er, Martin Cakebread. Whereupon I charged him with Aggravated Bigging Up Of Self With Malice Aforethought.

Evening all.

New Logo, New Britain

2005-10-25T17:49:00.000+01:00

As we enter the home straight, we Bloggers For Davis have a new logo, courtesy the artistic skills of Eu-Serf. Pretty neat, huh?

Look out for it at all fine blogsites.

Bloggers For Davis 31

2005-10-25T15:13:00.000+01:00

Like many other Liam Fox supporters, the ever thoughtful Political Thinker is now blogging for Davis:

'David is a man of conviction... he realised the problems of the left, and he actually chose to be a Conservative.

David’s beliefs are not only strong, but sound. He realises that we need lower taxes for hardworking Britons as well as businesses, and he understands that only radical reform of our public services will achieve the standards many expect from a rich nation such as ours.

Most of our MPs are nothing more than career politicians and have no experience of the real world. David, however, is very different. Not only has he actually worked in the real world and gone far, but he has held various jobs in Government and Opposition.

When it came to policy, I believed Liam was right on the mark. While David is certainly not as right-wing, he is a man of substance and actually knows what he wants to deliver and how he will deliver it: lower taxes, better public services and smaller government.'

Conviction, experience, and policy substance.

Thinker, that's spot on.

Opportunity Society

2005-10-25T13:23:00.000+01:00

DD has spoken repeatedly of the Opportunity Society:

"One key purpose for the next Conservative Government will be to allow individuals to climb as high as they dare, wherever they start from. We will do this not by tweaking the current system, but by changing the whole approach."

And the essential building block is education.

Labour has always treated Britain's children atrociously. From the grotesque arrogance of social engineer Tony Crosland (Highgate, Trinity, and "destroying every effing grammar school in the country"), through the Gradgrindian brutality of Commissar Stud, and on to the ineffectual wittering agonies of successive Blair Babes, they've institutionalised underachievement. Timid Tone may talk about giving parents power, but there isn't the slightest chance they even understand what that entails, let alone having the guts to do it.

Alice Thompson has her own rant about this today, linking it to the way that toffs are retaking the high ground:

'This is outrageous. Private school pupils make up only seven per cent of the population (up under Labour), but their influence is out of control...

It's the Government's fault. The state system isn't good enough. It fails children on every level, not just the five million who never learn to read so don't even stand a chance of a decent career, but the pupils who never learn the self-confidence that comes from the good teaching and high standards expected at most private schools...

When Labour scrapped the grammar school, it turned the country back into a class-ridden society, where the children of the rich had a huge advantage...

If Labour really wants to boot out the toffs and give private schools a run for their money, it should bring back selection, not just for sport and drama, but also for academic excellence.'

Yes OK, we last of the council house grammar school generation maybe do always sound chippy about this. But Labour's massive levelling down of educational opportunity for the children of poor parents is a monstrous social injustice. It is something we should neither forget nor forgive.

Which is why it's just no good opting for a further dose of Blairism. As DD says, we need a complete change of approach. Enough talking the choice and competition talk: it's time we actually started walking the walk.

North And South

2005-10-25T08:24:00.000+01:00

We all know the score- around 200 seats in the North, and we have less than 20. Enter the Heineken candidate.

With that in mind, I took a shuftie through the postings on the the Telegraph's "Your view: is Cameron the man?" I wanted to see what Northern posters were saying.

The first point is that an extraordinary number of the Telegraph's posters are overseas- Italy, France, Switzerland, Singapore, Costa Rica...none of whom are really North of the Trent.

Of those who do live up there, Denis Owen from Lancashire says "Cameron has never had a proper job...I would prefer Davis". Paul Jones, of Radcliffe-On-Trent reckons DC will win, but asks "would it not be a good idea to start finding the next leader now so that he can be ready when he's defeated at the next election?" Hmm.

Derek Buxton of Stockport, says "There is no way that Cameron should lead, or could lead a Conservative Party... He is...lacking a sense of duty to the people less fortunate than himself or any firm principles as to the government of the UK. Just like Blair in fact."

There's more in a similar vein, and a special mention must go to Tom Burkard, an American living here: "I find it difficult to believe how quickly Britain is becoming a nation of ill-mannered serfs." Ill-mannered serfs? Not thinking of anyone in particular, we trust. "Cameron, I fear, will do nothing to reverse this trend. One gets the impression that his Notting Hill set are too busy pandering to media types to have any concept of what life is like north of Watford, let alone Watford Gap."

Richard Nicholas of North Yorkshire says...no, no enough of negative Northern responses to DC. And we should stress that many of the comments from overseas and down South are very pro-DC.

Let's end on a strong positive note. Northerner Elizabeth Nuttall, a Warwick student who heard DD speak there last week, writes to him:

"I believe that you will be a perfect leader for the party, being someone who appeals to all ranges of people, an accessible person who seems to me to be down to earth and ready to take control of the party and lead us to success. I think your focus upon winning Conservative seats in the North and urban areas is fantastic, and as a northerner myself (there aren't many at Warwick!) I truly hope that your campaign is a successful one. You have certainly gained my vote."

Interestingly, Elizabeth was a DC supporter before she heard DD speak. The Heineken effect seems to be working.