Cameron strong on party funding, vulnerable on dinner party etiquette
Fraser Nelson 3:21pm
The monthly Cameron press conference is far more congenial than Brown's. Coffee is offered at the door, together with biscuits made by the chef in downstairs kitchen. But for all that, it's quite thinly attended and short (30 mins). Cameron called every journalist in the room by their first name, being utterly at ease. I guess one of the purposes of these briefings will be to strike a contrast with Brown, who only knows a handful of journalists..
Cameron had an entrée for us. He announced, statesman-style, that he’d just spoken to Sayeeda Warsi in Sudan and could confirm the pardon of Gillian Gibbons. No one cared. All questions were on party funding. A ban in billboard advertising “would be more Stalin than Mr Bean” he said. Intriguingly Cameron says "parties do make mistakes, all of us have done this over the years". Oooh, done what? Accepted cash from proxy donors? The Times' Francis Elliot picked up this point. Cameron said he meant the patrons clubs “a completely innocent mistake”.
Joey Jones from Sky News came in late, and asked about the Sudan teacher. Cameron instantly realised he had the chance to insert himself in the Sky reporting schedule and shamelessly did his little Sayeeda Warsi spiel – complete with furrowed brown, serious tones - all over again. The Sky cameras were rolling, so he obliged with a take two.
He was uneasy at two points. Newsnight’s Michael Crick asked when Lord Ashcroft registered for income tax. None of my business, said Cameron. But, Crick shot back, isn't this "see no evil" approach exactly what he accused Brown of? Cameron hesitated then said he'd sought assurances of all necessary measures. And no, he wouldn't take any more questions on that. It was hilarious because this is precisely what he’s accused Brown of.
It got worse when Bob Roberts from the Mirror asked about his story (well worth reading). It said Cameron had thrown a drinks party at his house for people who campaigned (in vain to stop the closure of the school where his son Ivan went to. According to Roberts, some middle parents were tapped up and asked to stay for dinner while the drivers were shunted out the door after one drink. So, asked Roberts, does this mean Cameron has trouble mixing with people not of his own class?
You could see Cameron thinking that every word he said in response may give the story extra legs. He said he didn't recognise the Mirror story. Roberts came back again: he invited the posh for dinner, but the rest booted out after drinks. Why? Cameron replied that he'd said all he was going to. This “snob” line is political kryptonite to him. To escape he turned to a foreign journalist more likely to ask soft question, a typical Blair tactic.
So both Cameron's strengths and vulnerabilities were on display today.
Previous
Comments
David
December 3rd, 2007 3:56pmSorry, but the Mirror story is pathetic, and you do yourself an injustice by giving it legs.
GS
December 3rd, 2007 4:27pmSad to see the Mirror these days...
G
December 3rd, 2007 4:33pmI heard a very similar story to the Mirror one over dinner a couple of nights ago... Cameron lacks the common touch when it comes to dealing with the lower orders. I get the feeling that he is very much a creature of the class system as it last really existed about 30 years ago. "County" upbringing and all that...
CS
December 3rd, 2007 4:40pmWhy is that Mirror story "well worth reading"? From the moment you see the complainants describing the people asked to stay as "those who suited his upper class background", you can dismiss it as a bit of prejudiced bile.
Tiberius
December 3rd, 2007 4:46pmLet he who does not discriminate about his dinner guests cast the first stone.
The Splund
December 3rd, 2007 4:53pmThe Mirror story really is beyond parody. All it needs is for Cameron to have laughed evilly and swept out with a swirl of his black cape. Remind me again which (private) school Harriet Harperson attended....
Oscar Miller
December 3rd, 2007 5:04pmFraser - I've just watched the whole of Cameron's press conference on the BBC video. I don't recognise your description of it. Cameron despatched the Daily Mirror story with a full and convincing description of the evening. He made it clear that the Mirror was scraping the barrel trying to drum up a spot of class warfare. Please don't assist the Mirror muck rakers - you only discredit yourself. Cameron also dealt with the Ashcroft question in full - entirely unruffled showing no "unease" whatsoever. I noticed you didn't ask a question yourself. Were you really there?
grammarnazi
December 3rd, 2007 5:15pmre CS @4.40 the Mirror story was required reading in order to clear up the ambiguities in Mr. Nelson' thouroughly un-subbed post, unclosed parenthesis and all.
ChrisD
December 3rd, 2007 5:18pmWhy is the Mirror story worth reading?
If it is of the same lowly standard as the bin rummaging incident whereby they tried to undermine Cameron using his children's nappy habits, or even worse, the bile laden political editorials of Kevin McGuire I will pass thanks. It all sounds quite petty, nasty and desperate stuff from the Mirror.
Does it make me a snob if I don't include the class based prejudice of that rag in my daily on line round up of the political news and commentary?
DK
December 3rd, 2007 5:21pmCameron must be kicking himself when HE made the decision aged 7 to go to a good prep school and then Eton. His parents saying "But son if you go to a state school you will have the chance of one day being the leader of the Labour party". Hypocritical journos. It's all right to be working class but not upper class despite having no choice into which class you are born. Criticise his interpersonal skills just like Brown's awful skills but don't use it as excuse for your class prejudice.
Fraser Nelson
December 3rd, 2007 5:30pmWhy is it worth reading? Because this is how the left will come for Cameron. It's the "snob" line and a huge amount rests on whether it can be pulled off or not. Anyone interested in Cameron's future, or the dynamics of the next campaign, should study how he is attacked on this front and how he defends himself. It's as important as his defence on the drugs line two years ago.
Tanuki
December 3rd, 2007 6:01pm"Newsnight’s Michael Crick asked when Lord Ashcroft registered for income tax. None of my business, said Cameron." He could actually have played this for laughs - saying something like "I don't know: Labour's HMRC seem to have lost that particular data".
Maggie Thatcher fan
December 3rd, 2007 6:50pmThis Mirror story IS worth reading...;) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/maguire/2007/12/03/brown-loses-trust-after-3-fiascos-89520-20194808/
Caroline
December 3rd, 2007 7:15pmNo. Cameron can't be held responsible for his class and education, any more than Brown can't be held responsible for losing the sight in one eye as a boy, the way his mouth works, the shape of his jaw, and other physical characteristics - but in our democratic free speech society, many feel it is justified and acceptable to point out these gross 'failings'. Don't they?
ChrisD
December 3rd, 2007 8:15pmThe class war was so 70's and most people just don't care anymore. I blame this disintegration of the class prejudice that Kevin McGuire and his pals at the Mirror so love solely at the feet of Maggie Thatcher and the last Conservative government so hated by them.
No generation of parents have aspired more to give their kids a good education and as privileged an upbringing as possible than those of today whatever their background or income.
The whole attack on Cameron's upbringing has been done to death with the tags of toff, Eton and Bullingdon thrown around regularly by the Labour party and left wing columnists to little avail.
One thing is clear, David Cameron seems relaxed, finding it easy to communicate with *people* in all situations.
I thought he came across very well in today's regular press conference, he is crafting and building up an image of a political statesman in waiting as a future PM while leading the main opposition party.
Looking at the poor communication and debating skills displayed by Gordon Brown in recent months, what matters is not the form the attack takes, but more the ability of the politician to deal with it. Cameron can think on his feet and is confident of his ability to make decisive decisions.
The Labour party must rue the day they elected Gordon Brown unopposed, he spent 10 years hidden away plotting and planning his strategy grid rather than honing his own skills in that department...
Gordon Hetherington
December 3rd, 2007 11:01pmCameron is a spiv and not at home with the lower classes. Oops sorry I gave the game away.
perdix
December 4th, 2007 12:10amFraser - disappointed you wanted to give legs to the rubbish Mirror story.This kind of thing made me stop buying the Spectator.
john sheppard
December 4th, 2007 12:09pmI suspect that Fraser was never at this press conference and has written his piece in advance to reflect his prejudice His account bears no resemblance to what actually occured It certinly does not
TGF UKIP
December 4th, 2007 12:51pmThe story is nasty and typical of a paper which has the BBC's favourite Press political commentator as its Political Editor. However, I agree with Fraser that it is absolutely relevant not only as a demonstration of where Labour perceive Cameron to be weak but because it chimes in with Cameron's identification with primarily AB policy priorities and an almost complete failure to address or identify with C2 concerns. I am looking forward to seeing a poll with a geographical and socio-economic breakdown and I'd bet a fair few bob that Cameron will be shown to be especially weak in the North and among C2's.
Fraser Nelson
December 4th, 2007 10:39pmJohn, if I wrote this piece in advance and had such powers of prediction my life would be a lot easier. I also would be a stockbroker, rather than a journalist. Of course I was at the press conference - but am quite prepared to accept Cameron looked better on TV. He usually does.
Patrick Harrington
December 7th, 2007 10:25amI think that Cameron is making some very interesting points regarding Party Funding. His suggestions regarding Union Political Funds have opened a debate. I don't think that his suggestions on this are right though. Instead I think that he should consider advocating an opt-in to such funds. This is a legal requirement in Northern Ireland but not the rest of the UK. The consequence of an opt-out (which is the model adopted by most Unions) is that members contribute to Parties and causes with which they differ. This system relies on inertia so that money can be allocated by Union bureaucrats who often have their own poltical axes to grind. There is also a feeling amongst some Union members that their card will be marked if they exercise their right to opt-out. If an opt-in system was adopted there would also be no need for the time-consuming and expensive ballots Unions are currently obliged to hold every ten years to maintain a Political Fund. Patrick Harrington General Secretary Solidarity Trade Union www.solidaritytradeunion.org