David Cameron - the strengths and the weaknesses
August 24th, 2006-
Part 1 - the polished presenter with female appeal?
Before my main holiday I thought I’d pen out a couple of posts on THE political phenomenon of the past twelve months in British politics - David Cameron. Is the billing right that he’s the great saviour of his party or will the Cameron thing just fizzle out in a year or so and Labour will win their fourth term? 
My first part is on his strengths.
First a couple of anecdotes about Cameron which are quite revealing about the man who would be Prime Minister.
In her IoS column on Sunday Sarah Sands wrote of how a friend had been on the same plane as the Camerons as they were returning from their holiday in Corfu “. ..the plane had been on time and not too full. And sitting right there in economy were David Cameron and his family. Furthermore, the Conservative leader had spent much of the journey walking up and down the aisle with his baby. When I repeated this anecdote I got a mixed reaction. All women want a husband prepared to take the baby during the plane journey rather than peering sympathetically from the seat in front then returning to a newspaper and a gin and tonic. The men I mentioned this to, however, groaned and grumbled. What a nitwit. What a show off. I reckon that David Cameron’s dilemma is not between old Conservatives and new ones but between men and women.”
On a completely different tack one of the site’s regular contributors, Tyson, quoted an anecdote about Cameron’s search for a seat before the 2001 General Election. By the year before there weren’t many seats available and any vacancy in a constituency which was in any way safe was fought over bitterly. As the election got nearer Cameron must have almost given up until Shaun Woodward defected to Labour. Witney, in Oxfordshire, became vacant.
“When Cameron was selected as the Tory candidate for Witney he took some notes for his speech. He knew the ground rules that no notes were requested, so when reminded of this he elaborately tore them up and gave an impeccable speech. One of the selecting panellists told me that they had made the decision on this gesture alone. Cameron IMO entirely planned it for dramatic effect, and I think everything about Cameron’s politics since is planned, tested, rehearsed, coached, repeated for maximum impact”
For all we might scoff at the qualities featured in these two examples they are both proving to be highly effective and appear to swing votes. Certainly the ability to make brilliant apparently unprepared speeches has been the heart of Cameron’s ability to sweep all before him for, firstly, the Witney selection and then the Tory leadership.
-
You keep on hearing it being said that after falling for Blair ten years ago the electorate won’t go for the same type again. That’s like saying that a woman who always ends up with the wrong sort of man is going to choose better next time. We all know that it’s highly likely that she won’t.
Those Blairite qualities of “being an ordinary sort of guy”, the ability to make good sound bite, the way he looks, and the fact that for many his voice is easy on the ear all add up to a powerful combination.
Looking back over the past year the most telling phase was the way he handled the intense media questioning on whether he had taken cocaine. He stuck with his line about the private lives of politicians before entering public life and it eventually went away. A second Mr. Teflon had arrived.
His special appeal to women is most intriguing. While individual polls might show varying figures the overall trend is that Cameron has picked up more female support in the polls than male compared with last year’s General Election. The Labour “female bonus” that was won in 1997 appears to be almost exhausted.
-
But there are serious chinks in the Cameron armoury and those I will discuss in Part 2 tomorrow.
Anybody want to contribute a guest column? During my holiday Philip Grant (Book Valie) will once again be standing is as guest editor. Anybdy with ideas for guest slots should contact him by email.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I agree with all that and - as a woman - I find him quite appealing (even with a few love-handles).
But is he a Conservative?
I’d love to agree, and certainly Cameron’s appeal is much better than that of Howard, IDS, Hague and (the later years of) Major, but the personal ratings for him have been dropping over the last month - as noted on this site.
Partly, this will be down to attacks from Labour. While these may damage his rating to some extent, when they come from a party behind in the polls, not trusted and seen as sleazy, they can appear bitter and spiteful and not work. That’s just going by how much the public bought into the Tory spin of the day ten years ago.
Cameron’s biggest success has been dropping so much of the ‘Nasty Party’ baggage that Theresa May and Francis Maude accurately identified (and ineptly dealt with). Labour posters might like to hark back to the mid-90s when Labour and Blair really were liked and popular, or the Thatcher era when there was a real visceral hatred among many in the population of the Tories, but except among parts of the politically active class - a small section of the population - those feelings are much less prevalent and much less severe. Of course, a decade of opposition and Labour building their own track record has helped the process.
Even so, Cameron seems to pass the ‘ordinary bloke’ test - despite the fact he’s clearly not, but then Blair passed it too on a similarly flimsy base. That’s a really valuable asset and one it’s almost impossible to buy. Part of it may come down to not taking himself too seriously, or not being a 24/7 politician (or at least not appearing to, though I think that part is genuine).
What’s clear is that Tory policies were popular until people were told that they were Tory policies, but not enough of the electorate trusted the Tory party to implement them. The increase in the party’s poll rating since his election shows the impact he’s made there. To make it count though, he has to maintain it for the next three years through to the election.
Remember that Gordon and Sarah have just had another baby too and there were some good pictures in the paper yesterday. Cameron does not have a monopoly in this area - he’s just more showy.
Saw Ruth Kelly on TV this morning . She is now the “Communities Secretary”. When was this position created???
4 - Basically the new name/position for the now defunct “Office of the Deputy Prime Minister”.
Have a nice holiday Mike!
A sidelight on this is that DC is not actively disliked by most Labour MPs, in the way that Michael Howard was. He’s also not positively liked, like William Hague (who is too witty to resist). We basically feel he’s a good marketing man who has decided that the Tories’ best shot is to be more like us, and having an Opposition that accepts most of your basic premises is not the worst thing in the world.
That said, very few of us think he’s genuinely liberal-minded (or anything else-minded). If he thought the electorally successful route would be to call for low taxes and a ban on immgration, that’s what he’d do. That’s a significant difference from Tony Blair, who was initially seen as infinitely pliable and soft (”Bambi”) but has turned out to be driven by a very clear agenda to move Britain and Labour to a free market+social justice+Atlanticist position. One can like or dislike this set of views, but not many people would now say TB always does the popular thing and lacks any personal philosophy. A lack of personal agenda can be a tactical advantage (no baggage, as they say), but people eventually notice and then take you less seriously, which is dangerous in the long run.
O/T: I’ve had my first run-in with my Tory opponent, and it’s about the A-list! I reported in my email circular that she’d first tried to get the Mid-Derbyshire nomination (a new seat, expected to be safe Tory) and Broxtowe was her next choice. She wrote demanding a correction, saying that she’d only applied to Mid-Derbyshire because A-listers were expected to apply for several seats, and she had been sure she wouldn’t get it and was pleased they’d chosen someone else. I’ve dutifully passed this on in my email circular, but I do wonder whether Mid-Derbyshire Tories knew that she hoped that they wouldn’t pick her.
“We basically feel he’s a good marketing man who has decided that the Tories’ best shot is to be more like us, and having an Opposition that accepts most of your basic premises is not the worst thing in the world.”
Ha ha! Ironic, really. A lot of Conservatives were saying this back when John Major was PM
Nick,
I’m really sorry to see you stooping to personal attacks. As though you, as an MP, didn’t know that a candidate must apply all over the place. It’d be some kind of arrogance to assume that your first choice would pick you. Did you only ever apply to Broxtowe? Ever, in your career as a Labour candidate?
You’re better than that - I hope. Fight on Labour’s record in the government you’re part of.
Nick 6
And, of course, Dave in his role of manifesto chief, did call for those things (tight immigration control and an aspiration to lower taxes) last year!
Nick P 6
Surely you have regaled us with stories of your travels around the country and even Europe before settling in Broxtowe - rather cheap shot at your Tory opponent if you ask me (and I’m not a Tory)
And it’s hardly as if Mid derbyshire is at the other end of the world to Broxtowe now is it?
“Did you only ever apply to Broxtowe? Ever, in your career as a Labour candidate?”
IIRC he applied for Newark in the run up of 1997 GE too.
Anna Soubry’s reply. She would have stick just with the “A-listers were expected to apply for several seats” reply (which is the truth) and not add the “I didn’t want to be selected for the other one” part
Morning all, a few good points already but basically the thrust of it is, 1) do the publix care if he is a true Tory?(Elenor’s point) which I think they don’t.
2) Do they care he is all PR and photo shoots and no policy?again I think not, not many except sad saod like us actually do anymore
3) will they make the mistake as Mike says of “going for the wrong kind og guy again and regreting it the next morning” you bet they will!!
Most people don’t want to think nor worry about politics, the look at DC think he’s an ok bloke, is not Blair and think that’ll do me. Its a sad fact but true and more so as politcians and the person on the street get further apart.
ps. Eleanor, did you have too much to drink last night, quite appealing??!!
NickP, I know we’ve cordially decided to ignore each other, but as I’m on hols I thought I’d make an exception.
Like Commentator, I note your lovely sentence:
“We basically feel he’s a good marketing man who has decided that the Tories’ best shot is to be more like us, and having an Opposition that accepts most of your basic premises is not the worst thing in the world.”
So what are these basic Labour premises that the Tories have accepted?!! - Let’s look at your government’s main economic, political and social beliefs.
Privatisation of Utilities - whoops, no, that’s a Tory policy you accepted.
Nuclear weapons. Whoops, no, another Tory attitude you adopted.
Strong Atlanticism. Again, more commonly associated with the Right. Sorry.
Private sector involvement in public services? Er, more of a Tory way of doing things, no?
Uhm, non adoption of the euro? LOL. Nuff said.
Lower taxes. Well, if that ain’t Tory I don’t know what is. You might of course admit that you’ve raised taxes, but I’m not sure you will confess to such a leftwing attitude…
This is unsurprising. Essentially, Blair’s Labour is the Tory party with 1. more authoritarianism (ban foxhunting, 90 day detention etc), 2. some social-economic tweaking (minimum wage, BoE independence) 3. a disastrous immigration and foreign policy.
The only thing you have that we want, or at least the only thing you USED to have, is a very slick and successful spin machine.
However given how your PR has gone so spectacularly wrong of late, I’m not sure we should even copy that now.
Maybe you need to have a little rethink?
sorry about the spelling, its still early!
I do wish more people read this site and could see Nick P and SeanT agreeing on the basics, if that didn’t drive them into the arms of the Lib Dems I don’t know what would!
DC walking up and down an aisle soothing his baby is criticised by some? They are a small (and unattractive) sub-set of voters. His greatest strength is putting distance between them and himself.
He is lucky—timing is everything.
And he doesn’t look as though he’ll be part of the something-must-be-done tendency, which is the starting point for PC and other daft legislation. A parallel asset—he espouses few detailed policies to be ritually demolished by ‘helpful’ and ‘constructive’ crititism.
His greatest weakness is the people around him. Mrs T had Keith Joseph, and others like Hayek in the ‘orbit’. TB had A Campell, and Murdoch at a comparable distance. Winners surround themselves with winners. And DC?
seant how is boe independence in any way social engeniering - wouldnt cameron possibly bringing in all women shortlists be a good example of that?
My David Cameron anecdote….I was visiting a friend in Chipping Norton during the 2001 campaign. Down the main street came a whirlwind of blue rosettes which on closer inspection turned out to be a candidate and three others. The Candidate stuck his hand out and said “I hope we can rely on your su…..” as he disappeared into the distance. Apparently this was the man himself.
As for travelling ecconomy…..I have mixed feelings.Very young children always travel ecconomy and apart from airlines to the Middle East. For others who choose ecconomy when they can afford Club….either they are mean or frugal. Neither indicate the common touch.
As for men walking up and down carrying babies…. these people drive me crazy! It’s like a Japanese water torture particularly as most mumble to their children when they’re doing it. If they really want to be good parents why not have a holiday in this country until the baby is old enough to enjoy it. 0/10!
“Furthermore, the Conservative leader had spent much of the journey walking up and down the aisle with his baby.”
Contrasting to Ken Clarke who was filmed during the leadership campaign letting his wife carrying the suitcases into the car.
Now the question everyone is wondering and that will decide the election: is Cameron naturally hairless on his chest or did he shave it for that swimwear photo?!
8 Commentator. Far be it for me to defend Nick P, he’s old enough and politically ugly enough for that himself, but to suggest that Nick’s post @ 6 was “stooping to personal attacks” was way off the mark.
And if his opponent is so politically fragile about her selection she’ll not last long in the cut and thrust of election politics.
………………………………..
On thread I’m especially looking forward to Part III of this Cameron expose ….. Man Boobs, Pre-op Transvestism and Feminist Election Opportunities.
I agree that Cameron’s branding is his greatest strength.
During the Leadership campaign I couldn’t see what the fuss was about whenever I saw Cameron himself.
It largely seemed to me to be media driven with various journalists/PR etc saying ” this guy gets it, he had Frappacino at his launch has Gay friends and uses an Applemac !”
Which as I think Guido once commented “all looks a bit early 90’s dot com bubble”
I was more impressed with David Davis as a politician who I still think comes across well on Radio and TV and has a compelling Life story.But in comparison to Cameron seemed to run a duff campaign (the women in ‘DD for me ‘tops)and have too many enemies.
However Cameron’s team were clearly able to build a momentum in the media and he was able to kill off Davies with a ‘look no notes’ speech. I felt Davies had the jump on Cameron policy wise but Cameron still romped home on the strength of his branding.
While a percieved lack of policy was damaging ,I feel it has overall worked well in that it fed into his ” I’m nice,I’m listening,I’m feminine” appeal ( I wonder how often he uses ‘We’ rather than ‘I’ in speeches ? ).
He has also been lucky ( a key ingredient for sucessfull politicians ) to have become leader just prior to 6 months of Lab self destruction.
So far he has gained more on the swings than he has lost on the roundabouts .
[18] The excellent Roger makes his first entry in the ‘most fatuous critism of DC competition’. Most days, he submits several entries. But awarding the man 0/10 for quietly crooning and mumbling to his baby on a flight…that’ll take some beating.
Interesting leader today on Cameron. Actually the story about the airline made me warm to Cameron- I have heard similar things about the Blairs- and living and working in Oxfordshire I come across Cameron in different guises;
-he enjoys his pint (frequents his local pubs)- and he likes to mix with the locals. He is extremely comfortable with the public very much in an ordinary kind of guy way. In a group you wouldn’t pick out Cameron. He doesn’t impose himself, or exude any kind of self importance that you see with many other politicians.
-his constituents genuinely like him and he appears to be a genuine advocate for them (high profile, gets involved,)
-Oxford academics (and the University Chancellor) like him
-he is worshipped by his local consituency party (even before his rise to prominence in the Tory party)
Generally he is an extremely likeable and personable guy. Well there isn’t much to dislike (apart from some old unreconstructed lefties like myself who occassionally go on a class based rant against him- but only on a bad day).
I am intrigued by your post tomorrow but would guess his two chinks are;
-his bad temper and occasional off the cuff thoughtless remarks
-surrounded by an Eton cabal
But will wait to see
re 18 & 22. Presumably Roger is happy for mothers to walk up and down calming their babies.
Sounds a bit of a sexist attitude to me.
Unfortunately I’m a freequent flyer and nothing gets me quite as agitated as things that happen on planes. I once sat behind a woman on Club who changed her baby in the seat. I asked the Lufthansa stewardess whether this was normal on their flights and she said “Don’t you have children?”!
18. What a load of cobblers. Many people who could afford club refuse to pay the ridiculous price premium unless they have an overriding business reason - immediate meetings on arrival etc. To suggest that it is mean & frugal to avoid disturbing those have paid a premium for space, quiet etc is plain stupid. I also look forward to your proposing your vote winning strategy of banning overseas holidays for children. Perhaps you mean planes should be reserved for the exclusive use of VIP politicians; their entourages and rich business men or are you just so bigoted against DC that you will criticize anything he does?
7. Commentator. I wasn’t quite sure what point you were making but I remember thinking at the time that JM was quite a good PM, unfortunately hampered by a divided party. Nothing since has caused me to change this view. Am I alone in thinking this?
24. Only men do it. I’ve seen literally dozens of men do it but I’ve not seen a woman.
Moscowman. That’s called being frugal isn’t it? It wasn’t a criticism
By the way- will not be contributing much to the site in the next few weeks or so (although will follow leads and occasional threads). I hear a collective sigh of relief- but do note that my tongue is often very much in the side of my cheek when posting (why I felt extremely guilty when Mike thought his motives were being challenged).
Work as usual is pressing at this time of year.
Anyway have enjoyed very much posting over the summer, and sparring with others. Sean Fear- thanks very much for your concession of sorts last night- much appreciated.
I will probably pop up from time to time though- so any talk of a pbCOM retirement is extremely premature.
I never see anyone - male or female - walking up and down a plane with their baby.
Poser.
Tyson, your anecdote about DC’s note-tearing-up is interesting. Did he plan the whole thing or not? I suspect the answer might be subtler than Yes/No. I think truly gifted politicians (Clinton, Blair, maybe DC) have a subconscious ability to ‘do the pleasing thing’ without knowing it.
Remember Blair and his mug of tea with a picture of his family on it? My hunch is that Blair didn’t deliberately choose the mug thinking ‘that will look good on TV’ he just picked it up, because his political instincts told him to, even if he was consciously unaware of the choice.
Cameron has the same gift, I reckon. It used to be called charm, and its what Etonians are famous for. Someone once defined Etonian charm as this: ‘when at Etonian meets someone walking towards them, he engages them in conversation and the other person ends up walking the wrong way; only when the Etonian has gone does the other guy realise. But he doesn’t mind’.
Someone should right an essay on the role of charm in politics. Heck, maybe I will. Does having charm make politicians less principled? The examples of Blair and Clinton seem to indicate that..
But Mike Smithson’s right. Some of us may suspect DC, but the people keep on falling for these smoothies, time and again, like Prince Charles falling for blondes.
“By the year before there weren’t many seats available and any vacancy in a constituency which was in any way safe was fought over bitterly. As the election got nearer Cameron must have almost given up until Shaun Woodward defected to Labour.”
In 2001 there were 23 MPs standing down in Con held seats (and not all of them were safe, for ex Ludlow was lost). But I’m not sure when they selected and how many of them selected at the same time of Witney (Woodward defected in Dec 1999, so the selection probably happened in 2000). Theresa Gorman announced she was going to stand down in the same period (29 Nov 1999), so her seat is one of those that selected more or less when Witney did.
32. There’s a big difference between being charming and being a smoothie, though. I’ve met charming Etonians who wouldn’t dream of parading themselves like Cameron.
I must say that the only story so far that has made me warm to Cameron is the one told by Tyson. The one Sean mentions where he ripped up the paper. My difficulty with Cameron is that I think he’s weak and manufactured. Perhaps I’ve misjudged him and he really has got a delightful streak of Machiavelli?
My anecdote of Cameron: I was walking around Westminster when David Cameron happened to cycle past on his bike. I waved at him, and noticing me he waved back briefly and cycled off. This was clearly a person from the landed-gentry elite who thought it would be amusingly egalitarian to acknowledge someone he patronisingly considered earthy and proletariat. This faux bonhomme was quite sickening really.
30 - Work?! You’d be a teacher of some sort then?
Ta-ra, then Tyson, and don’t confuse us by changing your name next time!
30. Tyson, pay attention or pb.com can select someone else to replace you whilst you’re away!
32. Re note-tearing-up thing.
Uhm, thankfully for him no many people like me were present in that selection meeting. That thing would have made him losing points with me more than gaining then. I would have interpreted it as a sign of weakness (in the sense of being unsure and so needing to keep the notes with me until the last minute).
34. p.s. Oliver Letwin is often described as charming, but comes over as way more genuine than Cameron.
Cameron has adopted a single (very clever) personal strategy since long before the election. In 2003 Michael Howard promoted both Cameron and Osbourne to the front bench and at that Conference the talk was all of ‘our Brown and Blair’.
Since then Cameron has consistantly postioned himself as the ‘heir to Blair’. The reason he has done this is because the public in 1997 had high hopes for the man, believing that he really was the right guy (although possibly in the wrong party) to straighten out the public services once and for all.
At the time the public had completely lost faith in the Tories believing we were obsessed with Europe, fatally divided and completely out of fresh policies (all of which was true).
It’s not tax, or even Iraq, the disappointment in middle England is that Blair has led an incompetant (and possibly even corrupt) administration. People want above all to feel that their Government is manned with competent and able people who can ‘get things done’ but everything just seems to go pear shaped under Labour, even the wars.
Oddly the largest number of cock-ups have come from the Treasury, Gordon Brown, but that is another issue.
Camerons pitch (I’m the real deal) will work and there is nothing that Labour can do about it. That knowledge is corroding what is left of Labour Party morale and the upcoming leadership contest will be bitter and divisive as a result.
35. Roger, it’s probably because we’re not his target.
My post at 40, it was 2004 Conference - not 2003.
Very interesting article Mike.
Some anecdotal feedback I’m picking up is that whilst I can see the clear impact DC is having on female voters in the opinion polls, I’m finding that more often han not woman my age 40 - 50 and older seem much less impressed with DC. Don’t know whether that is significant/accurate or they’re just been nice to me on the doorstep (I’m a Lib Dem) so wonder if any other political pb posters have come across this varient?
DC’s prep and re-branding exercise really is quite outstanding though. I see the BBC is carrying a pic and story of him meeting Nelson Mandella. My God I was campaigning for anti-apartheied when the Tories en-masse were apologists for the white regime in South Africa. If memory serves me right Thatcher even called Mandella a terroist once! Now DC is cosying up to him. VG politics - I just find the volte - face astonishing. Be a bit like me suddenly advocating capital punsishment and damning the EU for being a cunning plan to force all good, solid englishmen to talk French!
Will DC’s volte-face work? Who knows. I just keep coming back to most of the Tories I meet on the doorstep. They hate everything about 21st Century Britain. Just hate it - gay people, black people, the EUa nd probably themselves for all I know. Will they keep quite as Cameron turns them into a sort of ersatz touchy feely Blair/New Labour. Who knows. But my oh my, hasn’t politics changed over the last 10 years.
40. Yes, I think Cameron will win, though I am unsure how much of a Tory he will be. People are just bored and slightly nauseated by the Labour Party, and their fibs and incompetence on tax credits, immigration, Iraq, etc etc. I’m not sure there’s much Labour can do about this - at the moment they are coming across as the bleating and cheating ex boyfriend begging for another chance, by buying a few roses from Sainsburys. Yuk.
The voters want a new boyfriend. That lovely posh bloke who’s so nice with his kids.
Even Roger is getting sweet on Cameron. You can always tell when someone’s falling in love when they protest too much about the love-object, nitpicking absurdly over non-existent faults. It’s the last stage of denial before they give in - and swoon.
I agree Andrea. The funny thing is that if you were describing ‘New man’ circa 2000 all those stories would be on the button. But I don’t believe any of them. I don’t even believe Sarah Sands ‘friend’ saw DC on the plane. Steve Hilton would have given the story to Sarah Sands (probably bosom buddies) and she wrote it up. I don’t doubt that Cameron might have walked with his baby (though what the nanny was doing I don’t know) that but I’m sure that’s not how it got into print.
Roger at 45. Ooooh it was spin you mean? - what, like Alistair Campbell saying that John Major tucked his shirt inside his Y fronts?
46. Maybe Edwina told him….
32: I’ve a slightly trivial story about Etonian charm. I was once trudging to the lavatories in the Criterion pub in Windsor only to find the entrance blocked by three or four somewhat merry Etonians (presumably on some post-A Level pub crawl). I was something of a class warrior then and boomed out ‘Excuse me please!’ in my best miffed voice. They fell silent, one turned to me and said ‘I’m dreadfully sorry’, and they all parted and let me through. Now, the lad who apologized probably couldn’t have given a flying fig whether I was inconvenienced or not, but when he said ‘I’m dreadfully sorry’ it sounded like the sincerest, most heart-felt request for forgiveness you could ever hear.
43 - “They hate everything about 21st Century Britain. Just hate it - gay people, black people, the EUa nd probably themselves for all I know.”
You mean like the Tories in Rutland who hate gay’s so much they elected one with a thumping majority, or the homophobes in Arundel perhaps. Or those racist Tories in Windsor who elected Adam Afriye?
44. I’m more than half inclined to agree with you, Sean T, although I would put it differently. Many centre or left-leaning voters will be pleased that the Conservative Party is becoming a genuine option for those disenchanted with Blair, for whatever reason. In my own case, for example, it’s the Atlanticist policy that has distanced me from what should be my political homeland. If Cameron really can take the party back to the centre ground, it becomes a definite maybe for people like me - for the first time in…well, generations really.
On the whole, I regard that as a good thing. I don’t give a stuff about the alleged ‘tricks’ with which this thread has been pre-occupied. The man’s got to win votes to get in, for heaven’s sake. If baby-minding, cycling, and bermuda shorts is what it takes, so be it.
Cameron’s other strength is that he embodies a vague social liberalism (Drugs,sexuality etc )and environmental concern.
Both areas that NuLab have been weak on and the LD’s have harvested well.
The crucial difference being that while the LD’s have policies to address those issues ( ie actually do something about them ) in Cameron the Con’s have a public face who embodies those issues far better than the Ld’s public face (Ming).
43 - disagree, middle aged and older women have shifted to DC. Just put his face by the words and the approval ratings move up.
O/T see that Gordon’s mate is now Labour’s biggest private donor.
Guardian today “Three-quarters of donations are from trade unions - the biggest donors are T&G, Amicus, GMB, Unison, and Usdaw. The biggest private donor is Ronald Cohen, a multimillionaire venture capitalist who is a big supporter of Gordon Brown. He is tipped to be Labour’s new fundraiser, and gave £250,000 to the party.”
To understand how Gordon will make his move just follow the money. The Unions and his mate now provide 82%+ of Labour donations. If you control the purse you control the party. Also how long can Murdoch back a party that is firmly back under the influence of the unions?
8/10: Yes, I applied to other places before Broxtowe. There’s nothing wrong with that: we can’t all get our first choices, and it would be childish to give up after one attempt. The point she was making, though, is that she applied in the expectation of losing, simply to fulfill the A-list requirement, and that she was pleased they’d not chosen her. I never applied to anywhere that I wouldn’t have been pleased to win.
36: Um, I think you’re being a bit hard on Cameron there. If he’d ignored you and cycled grimly onwards, you might have accused him of arrogance. Politicians can’t win in that sort of thing.
39: Yes, Oliver Letwin is almost universally liked - one of the nicest people in politics IMO.
16, 18: Interesting contrast between these posts!
I read 16 and agreed - surely the number of people who think a father shouldn’t be seen comforting his baby could be counted on the fingers of 1 mitten. But a mere 2 posts later i come across Victorian dad from Viz! Come on, what’s worse, a baby being comforted, or left screaming?
This annoys me so much as a father of 2 young children myself. And the suggestion that we should stay at home and not be able to travel anywhere is quite offensive. Feel sorry for your children Roger (if you have any).
I should also say that in this day and age cameron doing this is hardly even a matter for comment, I’m sure Blair, Brown would do the same.
As for travelling economy, there’s hardly any point going business on short haul, the difference is minimal.
just read 28: nonsense.
ok max maybe not all tory voters, but those comments are accurate for the vast majority of members
When is the next poll out?
I expect the Tories to show a similar lead, with the LD’s falling back- there has been much publicity for Cameron over the last week, the LD’s have been non existant.
55 - The same members who overwhelmingly voted for David Cameron?
Given the alleged hatred of black people and gays does it not strike you as slightly odd that the membership would back someone who wanted to modernise the party and make the party more reflective of modern Britain?
re 56. YouGov for the Telegraph might be out tomorrow,
51. Yes - it would have been much better to have kept Kennedy and paired him with Mark Oaten, both shining examples of liberal attitudes to substance abuse and matters sexual…
46 Marcus. When TB came out of No10 carrying a mug with a picture of his kids on it no-one really believed it was spontaneous and as a deliberate act it was pretty nauseous. And it’s true he got involved in a fair bit of news management during the Campbell years. And he only got away with it because when you stripped it away you had a serious politician and you knew what he stood for.
Cameron by contrast is totally a PR construct. He is being manufactured as we watch into whatever Steve hilton and his focus groups tell him he ought to be. He has chosen a “New Man” persona and only time will tell if it’ll work for him. My feeling is that his time has passed. After Blair the country wants something genuine and unspun but I could be wrong.
60. In those terms, of course people will say they want genuine and unspun over a vacuous PR image, but the beauty of good PR is that’s not how it seems. And being unspun didn’t work for Howard.
Regardless, I think Cameron’s main appeal is his brilliant empathatic speeches, not whether he pushes his baby round a plane.
Big Mak @ 12: yes, I did have one or twodrinks last night but I can assure you that my judgement is unaffected!
Like seanT, though, I do worry whether Cameron is really ‘one of us’. It remind me of all those people within the Labour party who put up with Blair, Clause 4 etc as they thought it was all a ruse to get the party back into office. They even put up with Blair’s first term, as trhey reasoned that Labour needed to be cautious aftrer all those years of opposition. But now the penny has dropped and they realise he wasn’t ‘one of them’ at all.
I do worry that we might suffer the same fate with Cameron. Is it really worth getting back into office if it turns out that our leader is really Tony Blair Mk II (in every sense)?
49. Max, some of the Falmouth tories on the other hand….
and don’t let me start with the president of Arundel association (who’s main job seems to be trying to stop every equal rights bill in the Lords)!
62. Big difference between Blair and Cameron though in that regard is that Cameron comes from an impeccably Tory cultural background, whereas Blair absolutely did not come from a Labour background. That makes Blair far more suspect as a ‘cuckoo in the nest’.
54. I didn’t take her abroad until there was more than an even chance that she wouldn’t scream the whole flight. Babies don’t care whether they go on holiday here or abroad so why inconvenience 200 hundred other people so I could get a tan?
That’s a very fair article, Mike, and I’ll look forward to its counterpart.
Max @57, in and Brent North, we love nothing more than putting on white hoods, and burning crosses in Preston Park!
Western Child @ 64:
But I’m not sure what an impeccably Tory background really is. Someone like Norman Tebbit represents all that is best about our party, whereas the ‘grandees’ like Heseltine (dreadful man) are in many ways closer to Blair in their outlook.
Initially when Cameron first became leader, I think lots of people who were very nostalgic for 1997 Blair, were hopeful that Cameron represented a chance to recapture that moment. That feeling is the fading (one person put it to me that they just didn’t get the same feeling of excitement from Cameron). Then of course we now know more about Cameron. He comes across as a very particular type of expensive southern Englishman - I can’t imagine him playing football for instance, or let alone going to a footie match, but I can imagine him going to Wimbledon and sitting in the VIP box. As such he appeals to a certain southern metropolitan woman. I’m not sure it extends beyond that. He’s not as good-looking as Blair.
He’s also made mis-steps that Blair didn’t when he became leader eg having his servant follow in the Lexus with his clean shirt. We are all much more media aware than in the mid 1990’s. People then were genuinely unaware of how spin worked, and some of the Blair innovations - the ride on the bike, the footage in his kitchen, being filmed with his guitar, were very original. Cameron hasn’t really done a single thing Blair hasn’t done before.
I can understand why the Tories chose him as leader, he’s more personable than all the rest. David Davis is cold. Michael Gove, pompous and scarily neo-con. I know some people touted George Osborne, but Osborne comes across as the original nasty Tory, his effect is like fingernails on a blackboard - nastier than all the rest put together. Cameron is a smoother, slicker, type.
PS Gordon Brown’s appeal is completely different - he reminds me of my Dad, solid, reasurring, dependable, rarely makes mistakes and always there. Don’t knock this - most people love their dads and understand the effect of father appeal (the last time Britain had a father type was Harold Wilson).
David Cameron’s personal ratings have certainly fallen sharply, Snowflake.
However, Labour are in a position where they are now hardly believed on anything, even when they do have a defensible record. It’s incredibly difficult - perhaps impossible - for a government to regain lost trust.
Worse still, from Labour’s point of view, is that in many parts of the country, they’ve been completely hollowed out. Only 13% of Southern council seats (outside London) are now held by Labour; membership is c.190,000 and falling, and there are now 70 or so authorities that don’t even have one Labour councillor.
69. Sean, I think it’s just a question of getting our vote out. In the ICM poll yesterday, 64% of Tories were certain to vote, 49% of Labour and 56% of Lib Dems. If we can bump our turnout by 10 points, we will win.
Yes, but that comes back to my point about Labour’s withering away at local people. If people aren’t canvassed and leafletted on a regular basis (and they aren’t if a party’s local councillor base disappears in an area) you’ll struggle mightily to get them out at a general election.
Sorry, should have typed “at local level”.
“If we can bump our turnout by 10 points, we will win”
And the prospect of a Tory victory is certain to do that.
NickP at 53. Er, I think 36 was a joke: at the expense of the anti-Cameron nit-pickers.
And people say politicians lack a sense of humour!
Roger passim. You really are coming across as someone who fancies Cameron (politically) but is loathe to admit it, even to himself. Come on, give in, you know it feels good.
That’s a nice name for Cameron, actually. The feelgood Tory.
67. Heselentine’s ‘grandee’ status is assumed, remember. As Michael Jopling infamously remarked, he had to buy all his own furniture.
53.”If he’d ignored you and cycled grimly onwards, you might have accused him of arrogance”
I suppose it’s how you do it. Acknowledging it and an Holliwood style waving to the public are two different things.
Uhm, I’m not that sure that using Widdy to attack the minister of fitness is the right strategy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401927&in_page_id=1770
Perhaps this would be a good moment to remind ourselves that we have only recently finished the first year of what could be a five year Labour term
Thus as the latest Government determination that obesity will match American levels within said 5 year term, one might only wonder how Cameron’s man boobs will meet the challenge. Will he continue to expand in a Jordanesque explosion of Conservative voluptuousness into the mid 40’s% or will he wither on the vine into a Posh Etonesque Spice parody of emaciated stick insect proportions in the low 30’s% …… Will it be the flab wot wun it ….. we await more photographic evidence in the months and years to come …. far more accurate than a MORI poll anyway !!
72. If you just exchanged the ‘h’ in ‘withering’ for another ‘t’ your post would have been equally valid.
It really irritates me when comment is made on “the Tories” en masse that the people who inhabited the party in the past are the same as those who do so now. How can one person’s actions in 2006 be compared to a different person’s actions in 1986 and be called a “volte face”?
68 - Hmm. Tony Blair playing a guitar or racing other European leaders on bikes was no more impressive than William Hague going to Alton Towers. The difference is that Hague - unfortunately - still looks like a political wonk, no matter what activity he’s involved in, while Blair looks like someone else’s overly earnest Dad. No-one was impressed by it - but no-one was alienated by it either, and people expect to be alienated by politicians. It’s not that Blair seemed normal - he just seemed less abnormal than the previous three Labour leaders.
Similarly, it’s not that DC is charismatic - it’s just that the Tories seemed to have resigned themselves to a succession of increasingly uncharismatic leaders. He’s not a man of the people, it’s just that in contrast to previous Tory leaders he seems unusually normal. Who was the last Tory leader who wasn’t at least a little odd? Major wasn’t all that odd, but before that you’d have to go back to MacMillan, who was only really normal by the standard of 50s toffs.
Morning all :). I don’t disagree with a lot of both the positive and negative comments about Cameron. We can swiftly move past most of the froth about the man and acknowledge that with the Conservatives 9% ahead in the latest poll, he must be doing something right.
For me, the problem starts with the realisation that David Cameron might be our next Prime Minister. Compared with Thatcher, Callaghan, Wilson, Major and even Blair, Cameron is a lightweight political novice. Margaret Thatcher had been a Cabinet Minister and a senior figure in the Tory Party before she became leader in 1975. Major may not have spent any time in Opposition but had been on the Government front bench for years before he became Prime Minister while Blair had served for a decade on the Opposition front bench. Cameron’s sole claim to fame before he became Tory leader was a brief stint as Shadow Education Secretary.
I have no sense as to Cameron will perform “under fire” so to speak. He has had it easy so far with the Government imploding in front of him but even his strongest supporters must agree the odd mistake has been made but he’s new to the role and that’s understandable. He has ridden a favourable tide of anti-Government sentiment and he has done it well. However, as the election approaches, it will get much tougher. Policies will have to be explained, claims rebutted and it will doubtless get nasty in the campaign itself especially if Labour refuses to “go quietly” unlike the Conservatives in 1997.
Set-piece speeches to friendly audiences are the easy bit, the aggressive interviews Cameron must expect in the months leading up to an election, then and only then will we know if he has what it takes to be Prime Minister and remember we are electing a Prime Minister, not someone we like. I may not like much of Blair or Thatcher have said and done but I don’t question their calibre as leaders.
Ultimately I don’t need to be convinced but I think the British people have a right to know if the man is up to the job. So far, for me, the jury is very definitely out. There are straws in the wind which suggest, to me at any rate, that David Cameron is brittle and may well not stand up to the heat of a closely-fought election campaign. At some point, some comment or jibe will irritate him and he will “lose it” which could very well be the making of him.
81. Surely Blair’s most appalling performance was his lip-trembling black-tied effort after the death of Princess Diana. It oozed false sentiment (despite having been intensively rehearsed) and yet - as in the other cases which you note - he got away with it. Not sure he would now though.
There’s a piece in the Guardian today by Agnes Poirier on how both Cameron and Segolene Royal are modelling themselves on Blair.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1856888,00.html
Someone called “thetrashheap” responded with the following comment:
“look at american presidents. Quiet liberal Carter followed by all american Regan followed by safe George Bush followed by charismatic larger than life Clinton followed by “one of us” George junior.
In Britian strong larger than life maggie was followed by boring John who was followed by young and exciting blair who will be followed by drab Gordon. Blair II won’t stand a chance come election time.”
His conclusion is that people get tired and go for contrasts and that Segolene-Blair will have a chance as she follows Chirac, but Cameron-Blair will struggle to follow Real Blair.
83 - Actually that speech was one of the major moments of my realisation as to how much I disliked Blair. Populist, sentimental and pious, a grating mix.
I’ve always found that when Blair makes a speech, he puts me in mind of a mediocre actor of the old school giving the Agincourt speech.
60 Roger,
`After Blair the country wants something genuine and unspun but I could be wrong,`
Think they do.
but they only have a choice of two possible Pm`s, at election time, and they are`nt voting directly for the post.
So therefore if the mood is for change of party, they will relucantly have to accept the spin, that goes with the Cameron brand.
If you just want this lot out, you will not give one, until after the event.
84 - Dogmatic Thatcher followed by pragmatic Major followed by dogmatic Blair followed by pragmatic ? (Cameron or Brown I suppose).
Man of the people Carter followed by man of the people Reagan followed by insider Bush followed by man of the people Clinton follwed by man of the people Bush followed by who the hell cares by this point?
Such construsts are meaningless and only tell you the opinion of the person opining.
86. Indeed. I think the reason he gets away with it is that most of the public have grown accustomed to even worse acting on the TV and at the cinema. If Baywatch is your benchmark, even an old ham like Blair looks good.
“It’s not tax, or even Iraq, the disappointment in middle England is that Blair has led an incompetant (and possibly even corrupt) administration. People want above all to feel that their Government is manned with competent and able people who can ‘get things done’ but everything just seems to go pear shaped under Labour, even the wars.”
Precisely : few people are ideologically driven (or herded) in the UK ; most regard foreign policy as government business, as long as there are moral restraints in operation;most recognise of course there are links between business, and labour, to government policy and practice and, again, there are moral as well as political limits to this; those who get a poor start in life do have a claim on the rest of us; competence and, even more, outstanding ability from whatever social and economic stratum should be picked out, used and rewarded;home life, work, access to education and health (with funding for the disadvantaged) is centrally important and should be locally, and very lightly, governed. NuLab is incompetent at delivering any of this because it is quintissentially corrupted by its democratic centralist authoritarianism. Corrupted by the determination of its temporarily in power operatives to over-reward themselves and their children . By the wholly inappropriate religious beliefs they carry through, and answer to, in their activities, from Opus Dei to fundamentalist American pseudo Christianity. And to the vulgarity of their lip-service to politically correct shibboleths that divide and destroy community. NuLab is essentially un-English, un-British, spiteful, grudge-bearing, self-seeking, without awareness, never mind shame, for the loss of style and propriety of UK democracy that, up til 1997, pervaded whatever government administration was operating. This is what might be retrieved under a Cameron administration, whatever is thought of the particular policies or lack of clarity about them.
86. Sean, I always find Blair’s speeches “acted”. I thought I was the only one.
90 harold. Well Harold … that’s one in the eye for the Opposition if such a party as you describe wins 3 elections on the bounce big time !!
As a last post- just to answer a couple of questions- am not in education (Cookie);
and to SeanT’s post and others David Cameron is no Tony Blair as much as the Tories want him to be (they really do admire Blair).
I like to use football analogies- the closest to Pele is Mandela- effortless brilliance no more said (why I still get incandescent with rage at the “hang Mandela” Tory activists- Mr Osbourne), next comes Clinton akin to either Best of Maradona- flawed genius with a penchant for self destruction.
Blair I would place as a Johann Cruff- natural and instinctive flair and skill. Blair has a unique ability when confronting adversity- he becomes even more relaxed and articulate. Ali Campbell understood the power of this when he used to put Blair infront of live, hostile audiences in some kind of sado masochistic ritual. But Blair shone everytime. Blair also ad libs well- he is happy to deviate from script and soundbite, often intuitively and for political advantage.
Now to Cameron- I would compare to Beckham. Looks good, but like Beckham is about practice, practice, practice. Beckham is noted for the hours he puts on the practice ground. That is why I think the Witney anecdote is so telling. This was pre planned and pre rehearsed IMO. Still like Beckham showed against Greece the impact can be devastating (as Cameron showed in the leadership contest).
But Cameron does not do ad lib- he keeps very much to a pre rehearsed script. Whilst Blair often keeps to his soundbites, he is much more adept about going off piste in wider discussions.
Cameron also doesn’t do hostility. He becomes irritable, and then is likely to go off message.
Also Blair, like Cruff is a visionary and leader. Cameron, like Beckham, is competent and likeable, but will not produce the same results for the Tories and synergy as Blair has done for Labour. Cruff also had a determination for how football should be played, whatever the results. Again similar to Blair. And Cameron, like Beckham is just too much obsessed by image.
So where does that leave the others- Reid- obviously Roy Keane (or Ben Thatcher last night- ouchhh).
Brown is an interesting one- I would say at worst a Lampard (for England)- good skill, likes to control a game and good brain but could fluff the big occasion when tested to the limit, or at best a Gerrard (for Liverpool)- could rise to the challenge and inspire others around him- but whether a Lampard or Gerrard remains to be seen, and remains to be tested.
Sadly there are not many other current politicians with the kind of profiles to compare to footballers. Letwin and Osbourne- clever playmakers, but not goalscorers, and liable to be dropped (Glen Hoddle). Alan Johnson could prove to be Labour’s holding midfielder- the Hargreaves of the party.
Sorry for the many people who do not do football (Andrea). And really this is my last post for some time, but will continue to look occasionally at the threads
84 Smells of lefty desperation to me.
81. Blair was like a lot of people in the mid-90’s, who were in the real world that wasn’t inhabited by Tories. eg there’s a film of him keeping a football in the air by heading it. Lefty Britain has always loved footy, but it was becoming mainstream at the time, with Nick Hornby’s book. Blair was an accurate reflection of mainstream culture at the time. The bicycle thing was before he became leader, bicycling to Parliament (and it’s astonishing how much Cameron has copied every last Blair detail).
Cameron comes across as “expensive”. He’s not mainstream outside Notting Hill. He’s personable, smooth and so on, but also privileged and paternalistic. The defining word is “elite”. He’s essentially a posher version of Blair.
People accept elite types who care for the masses - Roosevelt and Kennedy for instance. But they worry about elites who care only for themselves - abolition of inheritance tax, tax breaks for the rich, these will feed into fears about the Tories. Someone unprivileged like Thatcher and Major could talk about those things, but not a privileged person like Cameron.
82,
Stodge as you say Conservatives did go quietley in 97, surprising many.
Blair kept saying to Gould this is not landside country.
However even when New Labour knew they had won they kept driving on, not to look to complacent.
Some of the media were shocked, by this attitude, of relentlessly finishing them off.
Think the next election should be more like 92, when the Tories realy fought in the trenches with a new leader.
Roger at 60 “And he [Blair] only got away with it because when you stripped it away you had a serious politician and you knew what he stood for”
Did you? Really? Because if you did know what Blair stood for you were a lot cleverer than:
a) his Mp’s
b) his party
and c) most of the rest of us.
Had any of the above understood what Blairs convictions really were going to turn out to be he would never have got the Labour leadership.
I have also had a fair amount of contact with DC through my political role in Oxfordshire and I would agree generally with Tyson’s comments at 23.
He is genuinely likeable, easy to talk to and, in many ways, down to earth. He has built up a great deal of loyalty amongst local Tories - even the rightwingers - and is liked by most of the people he comes into contact with.
He certainly has a broadly liberal social attitude - probably more a generational thing than anything else.
There are some buts though. While he is very presentable, I never really got the impression that there was much in the way of political clarity.
He does have clear views on some issues but on others he would simply fall back on the standard Tory viewpoint.
Take education as an example. On Special Education Needs - where he clearly has a personal interest - he has very clear ideas about how the system should work (although didn’t really understand te funding implications of it). But on secondary school results he would fall back on the ’state schools should learn from public schools’ but not have any deeper analysis than that. He did not seem to have worked out that Tory policy for secondary schools might achieve the opposite of what he wants to see in Special Needs education.
My personal view of him is that he is a fairly genuine person, good to share a pint with but politically lightweight. My expectation is that he will start to struggle when the Tories have to agree some real policies and that his lack of political substance will start to show at that point.
97 Marcus. The thing is Marcus many of us are wondering the same about Cameron !
Jury still out IMO.
Blairs Convictions (in no particular order):
Always please:
George Bush
God
Rupert Murdoch
Rich business people
Cherie
Always fight:
Anyone mildly left wing
Gordon Brown
Trade Unions
Johnny Foreigner, especially if he wears a turban
Hoodies
For UKpaul and others with the sick bag at the ready:
STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, MR TONY BLAIR, SEDGEFIELD, SUNDAY 31 AUGUST 1997 - TRIBUTE TO PRINCESS DIANA:
I feel like everyone else in this country today. I am utterly devastated.
“Our thoughts and prayers are with Princess Diana’s family, particularly her two sons. Our heart goes out to them.
“We are today a nation in a state of shock, in mourning, in grief that is so deeply painful for us. She was a wonderful and a warm human being, although her own life was often sadly touched by tragedy. She touched the lives of so many others in Britain and throughout the world with joy and with comfort.
“How many times shall we remember her in how many different ways - with the sick, the dying, with children, with the needy? With just a look or a gesture that spoke so much more than words, she would reveal to all of us the depth of her compassion and her humanity.
“I am sure we can only guess how difficult things were for her from time to time. But people everywhere, not just here in Britain, kept faith with Princess Diana. They liked her, they loved her, they regarded her as one of the people. She was the People’s Princess and that is how she will stay, how she will remain in our hearts and our memories for ever.
101. Even more nauseating than I remember.
101 Has anyone ever been to that curry house in Brick Lane, where they have a huge mural of Princess Diana’s head poking up out of the River Ganges, with a wreath of flowers? It’s quite disconcerting.
201. I think that speech itself is good. It’s that I don’t usually like his delivery. As I said, he gives me the impression he’s acting. Maybe he should join Glenda in Equity as a trade union (but no vote in the Lab leadership ballot, it’s not an affiliated trade union), because sometimes he’s very good. But with speeches like that, he can risk to be stuck in a Tv movie from a Rosemunde Piltcher’s novel (the German ones…so dably dubbed here).
101 B2W. I think there’s an element of revisionism going on here. Blair had only been PM for 4 months when Diana died and the Blair honeymoon was still in full swing. Also there is little doubt that Blair correctly articulated what most in the nation felt at the time. Additionally it was just as well that the PM’s feel for the situation prevailed in government and eventually into the Royal Family else there is little doubt that the Monarch would have endured the severe embarrassment of booing and perhaps worse on return to Buck House.
Some Tories might not like it but Blair saved the monarchy from themselves in the weeks that followed Diana’s death.
86 - Sean Fear that is very funny.
Can I ask you a question?
When you did that local election round-up, and there was a picture of a fella drinking a glass of white wine, was that you?
I think it would be really sad if DC couldn’t take a lead on special educational needs changes, as he would be accused of ‘using his family’.
A politician with an area of expertise he’s not allowed to use? Only in this prissy country.
105.”Some Tories might not like it but Blair saved the monarchy from themselves in the weeks that followed Diana’s death. ”
and is it a good thing?
106 - Yes it is me.
108 Andrea. Are you asking me as a unreconstructed 18th Century Jacobite or as a Post Modern liberal monarchist ??
105. I’m not sure bullying people into being as hypocritical as yourself is something to be lauded.
03 – Bizarre. It’d be worth visiting just to see it.
We had a local pub which tried to change it’s name to “The Princess Diana” after her death. Apparently they were told (by whatever bit of royal bureaucracy decides these things) that they couldn’t, but they still changed it to “The Princess”.
Sadly, Blair’s comments were not a lot different from what a lot of other people were saying at the time.
Yeah, much as I dislike Our Tony, it’s a little unfair to castigate him for Going Over The Top after Di’s death.
The whole nation lost it, totally, if you recall. I remember walking through Hyde Park the night before the funeral - there were tens of thousands of people there, camped out, leaving candles around trees.
It was like a medieval pilgrimage, or Lourdes after a miracle.
Blair merely responded to the remarkable, sentimental and pious mood of the country. Can’t blame him for that.
Looking back it seems like a Temporary National Psychosis.
05 - Harrumph. Not coming over all Daily Express, are you Jack?
82. Interesting post Stodge.
“Set-piece speeches to friendly audiences are the easy bit, the aggressive interviews Cameron must expect in the months leading up to an election, then and only then will we know if he has what it takes to be Prime Minister and remember we are electing a Prime Minister, not someone we like. I may not like much of Blair or Thatcher have said and done but I don’t question their calibre as leaders.”
I think that the tory leadership contest was the nearest thing to an open primary style contest we have seen. The intense media interest over a sustained period highlighted both David Cameron and David Davis’s strengths and weaknesses. As Mike noted, Cameron had to withstand intense media scrutiny and questioning.
David Cameron’s victory was described by some media pundits as a gamble. But as the outsider at the start of the contest, no one was surprised that he won. I think the message of change he was offering appealed not just to the tory members, but also to the wider public.
“Ultimately I don’t need to be convinced but I think the British people have a right to know if the man is up to the job. So far, for me, the jury is very definitely out.”
He has got up to 3-4 years to persuade the public that he is up to the job. Policies have to be produced and if successful at the GE, be delivered. Only then can we really judge him against Mrs T or Tony Blair. How many serious pundits on this site would have bet in 1976 that Mrs Thatcher would win in 79′ and remain PM as long as she did.
113. Yes I think national psychosis is about right. I was living abroad at the time and could hardly believe what I was seeing on TV. Suddenly, I understood why the public had elected New Labour.
105. He was articulating what Britain felt. Ordinary Britain loved Diana (whereas Tory Britain thought she was a nuisance). It’s a fact that nearly 10 years after her death, some newspapers still put her on their cover to boost sales (and it works).
And people still don’t like Charles very much (that incident on the ski-slopes just before his wedding to Camilla proves that he has less sense and is less media savvy than Prince William who came across as more intelligent and responsible than his dad). I’m not personally sure that Charles will succeed. The Queen’s plan seems to be to try to outlive him and pass the crown to her grandson!
111 Star of the stage. Perhaps you’d care to expand, rather than revert to cheap personal abuse.
105-JackW
‘Blair saves the monarchy’
I hadn’t heard that one before,seems even more spin than even Monty could manage!
116. will the same happen when the Queen will die?
13 - Oh, the nation didn’t ‘totally lose it’! A small but vocal and visible minority ‘totally lost it’ and assumed we all felt the same. I’d just moved to a new job in a new city and met around 30 or 40 new people. Of those, only one was at all bothered about it. I wouldn’t have wished death on the woman, but I held no particular candle for her, and nor did most people. The whole episode was odd, and tiresome. Many of the crowds were people out marvelling at the fact that there were crowds. Yes, 17 million people watched the funeral, but I know people who watched it, and it was more out of curiousity than grief. And that still leaves 43 million people who didn’t bother.
114 Cookie. My dear Cookie I wouldn’t wipe your arse with the “Express” let alone endorse its morbid fascination with the death of Diana.
231. They showed it live on main state TV channel here too!