The Tory situation is now verging on critical

Why has the Tory lead halved since December? James Forsyth says that Cameron and his four top men — Osborne, Hilton, Coulson and Bridges — must take the blame for the party’s dismal performance and its lack of message and purpose

24 February 2010

12:00 AM

24 February 2010

12:00 AM

Why has the Tory lead halved since December? James Forsyth says that Cameron and his four top men — Osborne, Hilton, Coulson and Bridges — must take the blame for the party’s dismal performance and its lack of message and purpose

One evening earlier this week a group of senior Tories gathered for a secret meeting in a house in Notting Hill. All of the most trusted members of Cameron’s inner circle were there — George Osborne, Steve Hilton, Andy Coulson, Michael Gove — but the atmosphere was not one of jubilation, or even excited determination. The predominant mood was despair. Osborne put their worries into words: What’s going wrong? he asked. Why are we slipping in the polls, even when Brown is so unpopular?

But though all the Cameroon brains were present in the same room, and considering that everyone there had helped craft the campaign and most considered themselves experts in the dark art of political strategy, no one had an answer. Osborne, who likes to see himself as Brown’s great nemesis, ended the meeting as frustrated as he began it.

It is as clear to the country as it is to the top Tories that the Conservative election campaign is in trouble; that the party seems to be stagnating. One aide puts it like this: ‘A shark has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we’ve got on our hands is a dead shark.’ A senior Tory MP is blunter still: ‘There is a real danger that we might not win this.’ To win, of course, means securing a majority, and an increasing number of Tories believe they aren’t going to get one.

These fears are justified: the situation really is verging on critical. Even after the bullying story came out, YouGov was still only showing a six-point Tory lead — which on a uniform swing would mean the party winning just 17 more seats than Labour. Even factoring in Conservative advantage in the marginal seats (assiduously cultivated for years by Lord Ashcroft) the current polls suggest it is touch and go whether the Tories get a majority. When you consider that they’re fighting against a party whose agenda has bankrupted the country, led by a Prime Minister who is loathed even by his own aides, this seems incomprehensible.

Since the beginning of the year, when David Cameron declared the start of his long campaign, the Tory machine has spluttered, while Labour’s has revved up. The Tories have lost momentum and made unforced errors. Labour morale has not been so high for years.

Tory MPs are torn between schadenfreude and panic. They have been largely ignored by the leadership for the past four years and they complain that if only Cameron had listened they could have alerted him to some of these weaknesses before they became so damaging. The shadow Cabinet — which has been bypassed for most of Cameron’s tenure — is now being consulted. It met for more than two hours on Tuesday — after the Cameroon powwow in Notting Hill — and had, unusually, a proper discussion of the political situation. One member tells me that almost everyone spoke at the meeting. That this is considered news says a lot about how the shadow Cabinet is normally conducted.

Why has the Tory lead halved since December? It is nothing to do with Mr Brown’s much-derided interview with Piers Morgan. The Tories conducted focus groups afterwards which suggested that the whole wretched affair had simply hardened the hostility towards the Prime Minister. It is also nothing to do with the economy, which is still weak. (Senior members of the Tory economic team are now openly speculating that the next set of growth figures will show that the recovery has ended.) Rather, it is to do with the campaign. The Labour message is clear and repeated while the Tory one is opaque. One shadow Cabinet member told me this week that he wished the Tories had a slogan as effective as Labour’s ‘a future fair for all’. Candidates report that voters can remember Labour policies but not Tory ones.


Even the party’s own press people complain — in private — about a lack of clarity. ‘Everyone struggles to articulate what we are really for,’ one told me. ‘We don’t really have a message or a purpose.’ When the salesmen believe they don’t really have a product, then they are much less likely to persuade the media or voters.

So much power is concentrated in Mr Cameron and his four top men — George Osborne, Steve Hilton, Andy Coulson and George Bridges — that they must take the blame for the current situation. This quartet atop the Cameron operation wield complete power, and so must share responsibility when things go wrong.

But diagnosing the problem is not a game of spot-the-bad-guy (although many Tory MPs enjoy playing this game in the Commons tearoom). The problem is that these four strong personalities are not working well together. Successful campaigns have, as a rule, a chief strategist and a campaign manager. The chief strategist decides on the main themes — what the election is about — and the campaign manager is in charge of implementing this vision: the day-to-day tactics. The Tory problem is that there is no campaign manager. All four men want to play at being chief strategist.

Let’s take Mr Hilton first. He looks (at times) like a pastiche of the Cameroon moderniser. He is a maverick whom you will never see wearing a tie. He has little time for the Westminster game, and has considerable confidence in his own judgment. For example, he is unconvinced by the quality of the party’s polling, so he just doesn’t use it, and instead relies on his own instincts and knowledge. To his critics, he is disorganised and can’t distinguish between gimmicks and policies. To his admirers, he is an original thinker who stands the best chance of providing the campaign with a clear direction. Whatever Hilton’s faults — and his time-keeping doesn’t seem to be a natural strong point — the Tories need his vision.

Mr Osborne is the force behind two election mini-miracles: Mr Cameron’s leadership victory, and scaring Gordon Brown out of calling an election in 2007. But combining the jobs of shadow chancellor and election co-ordinator is proving to be a struggle for him. He has already brought in George Bridges, a party stalwart, to help him tie all the strands of the campaign together — to co-ordinate for the election co-ordinator. It’s true Gordon Brown did combine being chancellor with running election campaigns, but this is not a model Osborne should want to follow.

Mr Coulson, the former News of the World editor whom Osborne hired to be the communications man, is going through his first campaign. Coulson has formed an alliance with Bridges, a veteran of John Major’s Downing Street and the 2005 campaign. Friends of Hilton argue that this pair are too cautious, too risk-averse. They complain that this axis’s objections to new policy announcements have killed the party’s sense of momentum, that their fear of one bad headline has overridden the strategic need to be on the side of change. Defenders of the two say they are only shooting down half-baked plans.

There does, though, seem to be a damaging disconnect between the policy and the media teams. In recent weeks, journalists have been urged by the policy team to write about a particular announcement, only to be told by the press team that it is not particularly important.

Coulson’s critics also say he is not keeping the press happy. As one Cameron aide puts it, his approach has been to devote the majority of his time to keeping the BBC and News International happy. This has alienated other media outlets.

And Mr Cameron? His sense of loyalty, while an admirable human trait, may let him down, in that he may have held on too long to a team with which he felt personally comfortable even if it didn’t work part
icularly well. The problems being felt so acutely now — lack of focus, lack of a message to sell on the doorstep, inability to see beyond a two-week news cycle — were complained of a year ago. Even his critics assumed that such problems would be addressed in time for the election. But with the election less than three months away, this seems not to have been the case.

Yet even those in the deepest of panics about the Tory election do not doubt that Mr Cameron is the party’s best hope — and that he is capable of turning things around, as he has done in the past. The two-hour-long shadow Cabinet meeting this week is a sign of him starting to act. Also, I understand that Michael Gove has been drafted in to put sharper focus on a handful of key messages. In his gentlemanly way, Mr Gove is banging heads together. Or, as one aide puts it, ‘Michael has had a beneficial effect on the coherence of people’s thinking.’

The next task is to activate William Hague. Mr Cameron describes him as his ‘deputy in all but name’ — but no one really thinks that this is true. Hague is now being called upon to appeal to the Conservative base, some of whom fret openly that Mr Cameron has made too many concessions to a discredited Labour government. Polling by ConservativeHome indicates that 94 per cent of Tory activists would like Hague and Cameron to front the Tory campaign.

Finally, Mr Cameron has resolved that the campaign needs to focus much more on Labour and Mr Brown’s failings. He is convinced that the Tories have spoken too much about themselves so far this year. This positive message needs to be combined with a relentless focus on contrasting the Conservatives with Labour — and, in particular, Cameron with Brown. Beauty needs a beast. And any campaign director will tell you that the Tories have one in Mr Brown. George Bridges would be particularly well suited to overseeing this part of the campaign.

There are other easy victories to be scored. Cameron’s speeches have been poor recently. But there’s an easy answer to this: take away his notes. When he reads from a script, his delivery is about a tenth as good as when he talks without one — by far the best speech he has given this year was to the TED technology conference, when he reprised his walking and talking trick from the 2007 conference. Mr Cameron avoids this, as memorising a speech absorbs so much time. But given the lack of impact his speeches have made so far, a strategy of ‘fewer but better’ should pay off.

A modicum of organisation would also work wonders. As late as last week, shadow Cabinet members were being asked for their contributions to the general election ‘grid’ — the day-by-day campaign plan. In public, the party says it is not just ready but impatient for a general election campaign. Behind the scenes, the plan for this election is still being drawn up. Yet this is one of Mr Cameron’s strengths: he is not wedded to bad ideas. When an agenda fails, he drops it and tries something new.

In the few times where Mr Brown has dared to face voters — in the European and local government elections — he has led Labour to some of its worst results ever. The Tories know this is their election to lose, yet the fear that they might is paralysing them. Their desire not to take any risks has — as one shadow Cabinet member told me — come across not as caution but as complacency and arrogance. And this is the peril Mr Cameron faces now. If his campaign carries on being crippled by caution, this wobble might indeed become fatal. They need to get the shark moving forward again.

James Forsyth is political editor of The Spectator.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Ian E

    One small phrase, Messrs Cameron and Osborne. EU in/out referendum.

  • ROJ

    Ian E is quite right, but one does not have to be pro or anti EU to agree that the Tory decline from double to single digit poll lead dates from the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. Cameron had promised a referendum. 65% of the public wanted a referendum. Of course Cameron was correct in saying that we could not vote on the Lisbon treaty after it had become law. But to the wider public, those who are not politics wonks, it looked as though Cameron was just another politician reneging on a promise. If the Tory manifesto were to include a proposal for any kind of referendum on the UK relationship with the EU – perhaps related to the declared intention to “bring back powers” – then the double digit lead would be restored, and there would be clear water between Tories and not just Labour, but also LibDems.

    And on policies in general – at the candidate selection meeting that I recently attended, only two of the six candidates seemed to know much about Tory policies, so it’s not surprising that the public don’t know much.

  • Ken

    They don’t want to win it and who can blame them?
    Let the Brown dog and his diarrhoea return for the IMF to rub his nose in the putrid mess.
    With Labour duly annihilated the Conservatives can try and win the subsequent election.

  • Ian E

    Ken says ‘They don’t want to win it and who can blame them?’

    This theory seems to be gaining traction and there is clearly some logic to the idea of letting NuLab stew in their own juices.

    I would, however, love to believe that the tories care a bit more for the country than this would imply. Also, I doubt that Cameron and Osborne could survive such a failure as leading Tories so I am dubious!

  • Roadrunner

    ROJ and IAN E are correct a lot of people were counting on Cameron after Brown’s scam on Lisbon and he let them down and lost their trust,We all know what giving 5 years to see what can be changed means,more of the failed changing Europe from within policy.Now a lot of people are not voting at all or voting UKIP,as I myself shall do and before the diehards start screaming it’s a vote for Brown it’s not it’s a vote for something I believe in.That we would be better off out of Europe.So come on DC you are said to admire Churchill do something Churchillian and start cutting the deficit by getting us out of this federalist nightmare.


    Sorry but
    it is simply not credible that ‘they don’t want to win it’.
    It’s just that they’re making a manumental hash of it.
    For Godsake it’s so obvious.
    Turn the bloody fire on Brown and Labour and blast them.

  • Quietzapple

    Apart from the cockups and the duplicitous nature of the Chameleon – (Osbourne as jnr member) project as the EU Referendum folk aver, Labour was always in the back of people’s minds as their preference, however dubious they became:


  • Natasha

    It’s quite simple really – the Tories are losing the intellectual argument about the timing of steps to reduce the deficit. A lot of floating voters sense intuitively that the economy remains fragile and that premature spending cuts could undermine the recovery. This translates into a fear of unemployment for many people. When fear becomes a major factor in voters’ thinking, all bets are off (c.f. 1992).

  • Boudicca

    It’s the EU. It was one thing for Cameron to announce that he would not hold a Referendum on the Lisbon ConTreaty because it had been ratified …. it was quite something else for him to announce that there would be no Referendum on the EU at all BECAUSE HE BELIEVES WE BELONG IN THE EU.

    It should not be up to Cameron (or anyone else) to decide on matters of sovereignty. It should be up to the electorate. Cameron should have announced a non-binding Referendum during his first term in office on our relationship with the EU in order to guage public opinion.
    a) stay in as things are
    b) renegotiate if we can
    c) get out

    We have not been consulted at all since we were sold the idea of the EEC on a lie.
    When the electorate has spoken, Cameron should enter into discussions with the EU and form a policy for his second term in office – one that favours the majority view or, if he doesn’t agree, he should try and sell an alternative policy.

    If the electorate vote to get out of the EU, then that is what we should do. Our Government is there to serve us – not to dictate.

  • Robert Upfold

    David Cameron has been wise in his handling of the European question.

    A strong Eurosceptic position on one hand or a Europhile bias on the other would induce a split within the Conservatives and although Labour is also straddling the ame fault line it has the advantage of being in power to reward ‘loyalty’ and to punish dissent.

    Frankly, David Cameron has done a magnificent job in the teeth of an intensely perverse campaign of character assassination which has drawn the fire from the villains who have wrecked the economy with the support of the self-serving client state.

    It is madness to accede to the possibility of continuance of the Mandelson-Brown duumvirate, after the equally terrible Blair-Brown hegemony.

    It is also grossly indecent to question Cameron’s suitability in view of the facts of Brown’s shockingly bad character which is bringing Britain into international disrepute.

    A Cameron premiership will make a positive contribution to the long process of restoring Britain’s image and to restoring the trust of our creditors.


  • Grumpy Optimist

    I am afraid that Europe is a red herring and to campaign strongly on that would be a loser for the Tories right nowe. My take on this is that the voters are terrified of the word radical – as spoken by Cameron. They have no idea what it means, but do know that maybe it is no time to rock the boat.

    Having said that, a new Labour term would be catastrophic for the UK I know (or thought I knew). My guess is that many labour leaders are terrified of that prospect – until now never believing it possible.

    On a different note, the fact that so many voters clearly do not see that Cameron (for all his vacillation etc.) would be an infinitely preferable choice makes me despair. The country is not what I thought it was. Maybe this will be the most baleful legacy of Nulabour. To turn the UK into a parody of a free and responsible nation – and instead only looking to the state and others both to blame and to look after them. Or maybe it is that for a nation to take responsible for their actions is somehow not PC. It causes offence to suggest that we are responsible and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to be seen by the Equalities commission.