The challenge facing David Cameron
Sunday, February 28, 2010 Writing from Brighton, where the Conservatives are holding their final conference before the election, Iain Dale discusses the challenge facing David Cameron in the wake of a poll that suggests a lead of just two per cent over Labour (See HERE.)
Two per cent? How has it come to this? Faced with one of the least-loved prime ministers of all time, a great clunking fist of a man with the charm and charisma of a wet weekend in Glenrothes, Cameron's Conservatives should be looking forward to a landslide victory. Instead there is talk of a hung parliament, a coalition government - even (heaven forbid) a Labour victory.
As someone who has never voted for any party other than the Conservatives, I have listened to a succession of Tory spokesmen with mounting exasperation. In particular, if I hear the word "change" one more time (and I'm sure I will because they have been programmed to say it as often as possible) I will "thcream and thcream until I'm thick", to quote Violet Elizabeth Bott.
This morning, during the paper review on Sunday AM (BBC1), Andrew Marr quoted someone who suggested that Cameron is approaching the general election as if he was holding a priceless Ming vase. In other words, very cautiously, in order not to trip up.
It's true. "Dave" is so desperate not to offend anyone (including people who will never vote for the Tories anyway) he's become a pale shadow of a political leader and the party has been bled dry of any personality.
I still don't understand what Cameron - and the party he leads - actually stands for. Oh, I've heard all that guff about getting Big Government off our backs. But where is the detail? What are they actually going to do?
On Friday, as readers of this blog know, a former landlord was sent to jail for six months for the "crime" of allowing people to smoke in his own property and failing to pay a £3,000 fine. I understand that Cameron cannot condone law-breaking, but he can condemn the law that has been broken. Instead, when he was asked whether he would amend the smoking ban, he allegedly, and facetiously, replied, "I don't smoke." Well, not any more. (See HERE.)
Perhaps he thought he was being funny. Well, it's not funny that as a result of an unnecessarily draconian piece of legislation (which could be amended within months, if Cameron saw fit), an otherwise law-abiding citizen is currently in jail.
Excessive use of speed cameras; increasing use of CCTV cameras; restrictions on this, health warnings on that ... what are the Tories really going to do about it?
"Broken Britain" should include the impact of the smoking ban on community pubs and clubs. But no, backstreet boozers and working mens' clubs don't fit into the New Labour/Cameron's Conservatives' vision of the future.
When the Tories talk of "change", what does that mean? Can they be specific? Of course not, because that would risk alienating certain groups. Instead, we get a bunch of meaningless platitudes. Well, I'm sick of it.
Do they think we're stupid? I'm a natural Conservative, for heaven's sake, yet the only reason I will vote Conservative in 2010 is because I want Labour out and the Tories are the only viable alternative.
The majority of people however are not natural Conservatives and they need rather more reason to make them vote for the party (as opposed to one of the opposition parties).
Time is running out for Cameron. He has a few more weeks (if that) before Brown calls an election. Like many other people I want to know exactly what I'm voting for. At present, it looks like more of the same (slightly diluted, perhaps).
That's not good enough. I need to know that a Cameron government has the heart (and the will) to tackle Big Government and genuinely roll back the frontiers of the state, and before the election I want the Tories to list half a dozen specific policies that will confirm their good intentions and will be implemented within 100 days of achieving office.
I still think the Tories will win the election with a majority of 20-30 seats, but the longer this campaign drags on I believe it will be in spite of, not because of, David Cameron's luke-warm and soporific leadership.
Simon Clark
Here's a different analogy. I believe that David Cameron is suffering from the same problem that afflicts many sportsmen when they are in sight of the prize.
Take Andy Murray. In the really big, career-defining matches - against Roddick at Wimbledon last year, and against Federer in the US Open final in 2008 and again in Australia this year - Murray has played a conservative game in the hope that his opponent will make more mistakes than him.
It doesn't work like that. They say that fortune favours the brave, and it's true in sport as in life. In boxing a challenger has to clearly defeat the champion in order to win the fight, otherwise the champion keeps the title. Playing it safe very rarely works.
In boxing parlance, if Cameron is to win the election with a working majority there has to be a significant difference between the leading parties or, metaphorically speaking, he has to knock out his opponent. And he can't do that by sitting on the fence.
Reader Comments (12)
The thought of another Labour government is just too much to bare .
The loonies took over that asylum years ago.
I agree Specky - but it is not our fault that the Tories are not listening. If we get Labour, it will not be our fault for voting with conscience. The Tories should be listening to us. Real change can only come with a change of ideology. Simon - perhaps the time has come for you to think about which other party you will vote for
Very well put, Simon.
I have generally voted Conservative since 1997 (when I couldn't bring myself to). I live in a reasonably safe Labour seat, albeit one that might fall in the event of the Tories winning 400+ seats. As long as they contain people like Carswell and Hannan, the Tories must be marginally better than Labour. But I will vote UKIP if they have a candidate, otherwise Tory.
I really struggle to see any way in which a Tory victory will make my life better.
My analysis is that at one time a substantial victory was once on the cards and caution may of be prudent. The turning point was Cameron's change of heart on a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and has been down hill ever since.
I thought a majority of 50-100 was once in the bag, and agree with Simon that 20-30 is probably more like it, especially as the Tories maintain their lead in key marginals.
Cameron correctly is identified as being remote from his activists and core vote. There is a tacit understanding amongst many that on Europe, the economy, the nanny state and immigration that if Cameron does not deliver, the current tactful silence will grow into a crescendo of public disapproval. A recent poll of Conservative PPCs suggests that 75% would like to see the UK renegotiate our relationship with the EUSSR. That is they are the children of Thatcher.
However I have been told from people who have dealt with him at first hand that we have little to fear. Time will tell and I think he should be given a chance.
Why in earth would anyone vote Tory? They're no different from Labour. As you point out they have no intention of repealing any of the draconian laws brought in under Labour. We are pretty well a one party state, vote for one of the minor parties or an independent, voting Tory is the same as voting Labour.
Look at the track record of the main three:
They conspired to defraud us
They conspired to cover it up
They conspired to exempt themselves from the law
They conspired to deny us an EU Referendum
Why would this bunch of criminals not conspire to turn this country into a one party state thereby giving themselves complete power to repress the population and loot the public purse to make themselves even more wealthy. Their EU Masters would approve.
I agree with your statements wholeheartedly Simon, but I can't help thinking that the polls are being rigged as, however poor the Tories are at getting their message across, and apart from the 30% of the electorate who rely on a Labour Government for their income, who in their right mind could want to vote for Brown et al? It's not so much that the Tory vote is receding so much as the Labour vote is increasing which makes me highly suspicious....
Yes I do not trust the polls Kellner writes articles for Izvestia.
But my question Mr Cameron would be.
Churchill or Chamberlin ?
You're ALL wrong.
David Cameron is an Alchemist for the 21st Century:
It's my firm belief - based now upon a mountain of undeniable evidence - that he has (at last) learned the art of Turning Pure Gold Into Lead.
Quite an achievement.
And if I'M wrong,
Cameron could always get a job as a stand-in with Churchill Insurance.
Once that irritating dog retires.............
("Oh, yes !")
quote "I believe that David Cameron is suffering from the same problem that afflicts many sportsmen when they are in sight of the prize... Playing it safe very rarely works." end quote
That reminded me of a successful trombone player and soloist who once told me one of the things he used to do when he was starting out. He used to get a wobbly dining chair, put it at the top of the stairs, stand on it, and play the solo he had to do soon. It might seem he was risking a lot by doing that, but he was a damn good accalimed player. Does Cameron take any risks? Does he come across as confident and brave?
I truly hope that DC is simply holding fire until the election date is announced. However, I do not hold out much hope that, even then, we will hear more than convenient sound bites and slogans. What I want to hear from him is:
An intention to restore our liberty and our freedoms. (In particular, of course, the right of owners and proprietors of premises and businesses to decide what is allowed within their premises - within a reasonable legal framework, of course).
An intention to save billions of pounds by scraping self serving quangos.
An intention to stop funding foreign and homegrown organisations which serve no useful purpose.
An intention to rein in medical organisations whose objective is to frighten us with their silly prophesies of doom.
Etc, etc.
DC is right that our society is broken, and that it needs to be fixed, but he should primarily be aware that the brokenness is caused by hysteria.
James Delingpole summed it up brilliantly as usuall in The Telegraph !
Cameron will get his majority I think.
That's when we will find out what he's all about.