What Cameron must do now
Fraser Nelson 12:21pm
Today’s newspapers are another treat for Conservatives with a taste for schadenfreude. Blair has, overnight, denied that he’s authorising briefings against Brown. But he doesn’t need to. They’ve been at it for days, not just old Blairites but non-aligned backbenchers. Brown is a dud, they proclaim, with no vision. Cameron is a hero, the polls proclaim, setting the agenda. Just a fortnight ago, the conventional wisdom was the exact opposite.
The tables are turning too often for my liking: I’d like them bolted down where they are. But only Cameron can do that, and only by bolting down the vision of Conservatism he announced in Blackpool. Had he flopped in that conference, today’s press would be full of analysis explaining why he’ll be gone by Christmas and his failure had become inevitable. We must not forget that it was Cameron’s recovery, not the preceding slump, which was the freak event.
His latest dictum “look at me and think of Arnold Schwarzenegger” was meant as a joke but sounds too much like hubris for my liking. His parliamentary performances last week were superlative. But as I argue in my News of the World column today, of the two of then, Brown is the real Terminator. He may look dead now with his authority in tatters and rebels rebounding but—as Blair found—he’s very hard to destroy. He’ll be back, but not until he’s terminated those Labour rebels who are sniping at him now. This creates a window for Cameron to consolidate his lead. So will he continue the Blackpool agenda of tax cuts and radical reform? Or was this a deathbed conversion to Conservatism which will be forgotten now that he has survived?
Plan A was to assimilate Labour, so voters would not be risking much of a change by dumping Brown. This model depended on Brown being despised. When he was not, the Tories had no Plan B – until they developed one, panic stations, in Blackpool. It was more popular then they could possibly imagine. Wisconsin-style welfare reform, Swedish-style school reform, lower taxes, the type of Conservatism which they had been bullied (by Brown) into thinking was deeply unpopular.
If Cameron will win the next election, he’ll recognise Plan A was tested to destruction (and destruction was where he was certainly heading) and Plan B, the courage to break free of Labour’s view of the world, is rewarded by Tory ratings of 43% - the best since before Black Wednesday. He said in California that he’s leery of “clear blue water” – the language of the doomed Plan A. Yes, Brown’s in a whole pile of trouble. But he’ll recover, as he always does. It is imperative that, by then, Cameron takes this rare chance to open an intellectual lead that Labour will never be able to close.
Previous
Comments
Perry
October 14th, 2007 1:11pmNice analysis Fraser. I very much hope that the visions afforded by the death-bed you mention are not lost on the once terminally ill. Lives are usually much changed for those who survive such experiences.
TGF UKIP
October 14th, 2007 2:30pmFraser, disturbing and disorienting though this may be for you, TGF UKIP agrees with every word you've written here. I wouldn't hold out too many hopes,though,for anybody who's been as daft and silly as Dave has for the past nearly two years to suddenly start behaving and thinking like a straightforward, common sense conservative is perhaps expecting too much. The other interesting aspect of this is Dave's need to define himself by reference to others, so Heir to Blair now morphs into the British Schwarzenegger - perhaps Gordon isn't the only one with psychological flaws! In any event, Dave would do well to remember that, except for the inhabitants of some parts of North London, Californians are the kookiest people on this planet and about as remote species as you can get from the average British C2 voter.
Craig Strachan
October 14th, 2007 3:37pmI live in California, and have a healthy respect for the Governator. But it is pretty much received wisdom here that Arnold Schwarzenegger can get away with stuff that other politicians who are not movie icons could not. He doesn't owe his position to his party and has comprehensively alienated the (admittedly pretty far-right) Republican base to the point where he wouldn't win a Republican primary. Heck, he wouldn't win a Republican primary amongst Republican legislators in Sacramento, who think he has repeatedly sold then out to the Democrats, most recently over the state budget, where he was too willing to adopt the Dems spending priorities. It's worth remembering that the Tories recovery in the polls didn't come about because they said they'd adopt Labour's spending targets.It didn't come about because of greenery or hug a hoodie. It came about as a direct result of a clear commitment to cut taxes.
Henry Rogers
October 14th, 2007 4:21pmPeople, since the rise of Blair until recently, clearly didn't like or believe in Tory tax policies. They do seem to believe now so something must have changed. At least some of that seems be because of Dave Cameron rather than in spite of him. IHT was a good choice of target too. Cameron has one big advantage over Blair when dealing with Brown. He doesn't need to keep him on side to keep a party together. Makes putting the boot in that much easier.
David
October 14th, 2007 8:13pmFraser, I'm afraid you miss the point about Cameron's approach to clear blue water. A clear blue water strategy simply hands the initiative to your opponents- to ensure the requisite 'gap' between sides, you have to define your position by theirs and react to what they do. This allows them to corner your territory, while driving you to the extremes. In fact, what Labour have been able to do to the Tories for the last 10 or so years. It's Cameron's steadfast refusal to continue with such a strategy, and to simply do what he thinks is correct regardless of what Labour do, that have restored the Tory party to the centre ground and credibility. "It came about as a direct result of a clear commitment to cut taxes." Actually, it came about as a result of a plausible, competent and fair commitment to cut taxes. One should be wary of writing over the other side of the coin of the proposal, the charge on non-doms, which ensured that cut was affordable, and placed a bit more of the burden of taxation on the rich. It was not a clarioni call to simply cut taxes willy nilly.
Lee Jakeman
October 14th, 2007 9:58pmCameron would do well to consider the fact that English national aspirations are a far bigger issue for the English than almost any other. Devolution has been unfair to the English and Cameron needs to come up with a just solution. It is not true that this would alienate him in Scotland and ales - both Scottish and Welsh nationalists have stated repeatedly that a separate parliament for England is right and just. I think Cameron is still unaware of how big an issue this is. The rugby fans in Paris sang "Jerusalem" at the end of their victory over France - not "God save the Queeen".
Fraser Nelson
October 14th, 2007 11:36pmDavid, my concern is that Cameron's aversion to clear water suggested he had not learnt the lessons of Plan A, the assimilation theory, which sought to elide distinctions with Labour thus destroying any point to voting Tory. If Cameron's meaning was as you describe, I am more assured. And I suspect you many know. From what you say about non doms, I assume you work in CCHQ. I haven't found anyone outside it who thinks the "find 150,000 non doms" gambit adds up. The Tories are very lucky the press isn't in a mood to scrutinise this too closely. Lee - very good point. The English card is one which we can expect the Tories to play, albeit quietly, when the election comes.
Craig Strachan
October 15th, 2007 1:39amDavid, I think you are right that Cameron has earned the Tories a hearing again. His speech to the Tory conference was good, his speech to Google was excellent! He's right that people have never had more choice or been more empowered in the private sphere, as consumers. And he's right that they do not yet enjoy much choice or empowerment when it comes to government and the public sphere. I'll be interested to see how he develops the theme. How will the Tories make the public sector more responsive? How will they give people choice in education? And what if the choice people want is a grammar school? How will the Tories give choices in healthcare? What if people would like to take a tax credit and go outside the NHS?
David
October 15th, 2007 8:41amI don't work in CCHQ, Fraser. As to the non-doms point, it may or may not 'add up' (even the Treasury can't be sure), however the point is still there- a tax change which looked at least like it was plausibly funded, and that it was fair-the rich paid a bit more so that the aspiring middle classes paid a bit less. Had it simply been an announcement of a cut in tax, I very much suspect it would not have taken traction like it did, as it would have been easier for both the Government and media to portray it as panic thinking grasped out of thin air that didn't add up to anything realistic. As to the clear blue water issue, I really think you miss the point. It wasn't simply to ape Labour, but to recognise that some of the things that they were suggesting made sense, had public support, and in some ways chimed with centre right thinking, for example, the city acadamies (as far as they went). The clear blue water strategy would see the party oppose the creation of acadamies for no actual reason other than to be seen as different (a good example is tuition fees-why the Tories opposed them is beyond me). But where the ideas were bad, or where there were differences, Cameron held fast to them, for example ID cards. A clear blue water strategy does nothing but hand the initiative to your opponents.
Tiberius
October 15th, 2007 11:52amI believe I'm right in saying that Michael Howard opposed tuition fees for the same reason I did - that the proposals in the form they were presented amounted to no more than another stealth tax. I have no objection in principle to paying for tertiary education any more than secondary education or private healthcare, as long as there is a reduction in general taxation in recompense. But despite that, the Tories had also stated that they would keep undergraduate numbers at historic levels rather than Blair's silly 50% target, which would have bridged the funding gap.
forsyth (no direct relation)
October 15th, 2007 9:03pmCameron's speech to Google's Zeitgeist conference did display a significant gap (even a chasm) between Hard Labour and his Conservative view. As a gap, it could perhaps have been bridged by Blair, but never by Brown the controller, the targets man, who apparently sees government's role as "unlocking talents" (what does that mean?). If Cameron continues to repeat that them, he should do well unless the electorate really has got a preference for living in a Socialist utopia (ie, "nowhere").