What's it all about, Dave?

Number7

Sorry Fraser, you're getting boring.

We all know you are doing the masters' bidding, But can you please change the record.

DavidDP

"It’s the intellectual concessions that dismay me the most,"

And it's why you'll never be a politician. The electorate does not vote purely on intellecutal grounds. Concessions have to be made to compensate for that.

The intellecutal purity of ideology may be rghteous, but you won't get much done with it when it doesn't get you into office.

Hannah

You have the same agenda as Heffer. I don't know why you want a hung Parliament so much.

You are deliberately trying to play down electability in favour of ideology.

Like it or not, there is a trade-off, and the last three elections prove it.

Short the UK

I think you'll find a triangle inside his head.

-----

Fraser,

Why have you guys not covered Frank Field's speech in the Commons the other day on the deficit?

NorthernJohn

Fraser, where is this Spectator (1828) Manifesto? Care to share it with us, for clarity's sake?

Jackie Miller

I think your priorities are wrong here. The time for the Spectator to try to influence Cameron's policies is if and when he has become Prime Minister. Too much vitriolic criticism from the journal now could weaken his chances of winning the election, a thing for which Tory-supporting Spectator readers would not forgive you. Perhaps you should make it clear more often than you do that you think Cameron has the potential to be a good Prime Minister. Recently, you have created the impression that you want rid of him. Worse, you have begun to sound like Simon Heffer.

London Calling

I suspect Fraser that all political leaders are holding their cards close to their chests. reveal too much to soon and the opposition parties will no doubt change the goalposts. So it’s a case of “you first” I want to see your hand.

Cameron has however slipped up on his own banana skins, Whoops…The Lisbon Treaty, Whoops… the 50p tax, Whoops…All parties want the same really, Whoops
…The Conservatives and the LD are really very similar, Whoops…Marriage Tax, Whoops…I Love Darling more than I Love Britain…

At least Music compensates the mind I suppose…Oliver Twist rumbles around in mine…”And if you don’t mind having to like a lump it …It’s a Fine, Fine Life”…

Its Snow Joke…

Afternoon Snooze

Thank you Mr Nelson for continuing to use your magazine to scrutinise. Mr Cameron would of course wish to anticipate Mr Brown's most likely course of attack in order to win his election. Yet we suspect the public would feel better disposed to him were he (and his lieutenant Osborne) prepared to challenge orthodoxies. At least part of the reason for holes in the public purse, is the Conservative's singular failure to hold Mr Brown to account over the previous decade. We are left hoping the Conservatives will make a better government than opposition.

Steve Green

It's time for change Fraser.

Tiberius

You really should be saying, Fraser, that you can see the difference between Cameron not cutting the NHS budget, and Brown hosing it down with taxpayers' money.

You can see the difference - can't you?

Irene

Oh, here we go again.

The Spectator manifesto - since when exactly?

Do explain.

Jez

"At The Spectator, we wish him well – I genuinely regard him as potentially transformative Prime Minister."

How?

By definition- Transform; a marked change, as in appearance or character.... usually for the better.

They're just the same as Nulab!... except more paralysed by their middle-ground, sell-out funders.

By definition- Joke; An amusing or ludicrous situation, Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, Something not to be taken seriously, the Conservative opposition.

Publius

The undoing of the left is that it has allowed prudent statesmanship to be replaced by scientific, theory-driven ideology.

I do not want the Tory party to fall into the same trap. There is an important distinction between statesmanship and ideology which far too many people have ceased to understand.

Vulture

You'll get lots of flak, Fraser, from the Camerloons infecting this site who can't bear reasoned criticism of their hero and respond to it with abuse. Take no notice.

While we all want to get rid of the disastrous Bruin and his filthy crew, it will do little good to replace Nu Liebour with Blu Liebour, and there's far too much evidence that Dave is a policy lite 'heir to Blair' ( as he himself said). Sadly, among the 'isms' he dislikes so much is
'Toryism'.

So best of luck with your campaign to put some lead into Dave's limp pencil: you'll need it. Frankly, I think its a doomed attempt. Dave is more Heath than Thatcher.

Vulture

You'll get lots of flak, Fraser, from the Camerloons infecting this site who can't bear reasoned criticism of their hero and respond to it with abuse. Take no notice.

While we all want to get rid of the disastrous Bruin and his filthy crew, it will do little good to replace Nu Liebour with Blu Liebour, and there's far too much evidence that Dave is a policy lite 'heir to Blair' ( as he himself said). Sadly, among the 'isms' he dislikes so much is
'Toryism'.

So best of luck with your campaign to put some lead into Dave's limp pencil: you'll need it. Frankly, I think its a doomed attempt. Dave is more Heath than Thatcher.

The Bellman

@DavidDP: Up to a point. Expedience is all jolly good, but it can only get you so far. It might sound drily 'doctrinaire', but a core set of principles exist to help you to make sense of turmoil.

People might not vote on intellectual grounds, but you don't need even to be particularly politically astute to read a phrase like 'I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS', and think, depending on your temperament, 'how can you cut former without cutting the latter?' or 'why is the NHS exempt if my child's school/our army/our border security isn't?' or 'why not cut both?' - or, more likely after years of 'Tory cuts' blethering from McSnotty, 'pull the other one'.

Fraser's post makes perfect sense to me. The concessions he refers to are wrong, unnecessary, and, in the longer term, deeply damaging. The left has been able to 'own' far too much of the language of debate. (That unholy bastardization 'prosperity/austerity' is a perfect example of how language has become utterly meaningless in modern public life - that it has increased since 1997 is surely neither an exaggeration nor coincidental...)

In war, there is 'key terrain' and 'vital ground', but this only makes sense in the context of your overall plan, which must be based on the tried-and-tested principles of war. It is far too easy to concede too much 'key terrain' to your opponent if you cannot identify it correctly yourself. Then, all you'll have left is 'vital ground' - and that is no basis for the kind of offensive that is now needed against the monstrosity nominally running Britain at the moment. And I honestly cannot tell what Cameron's 'vital ground' is, because there are so many 'commitments', 'priorities' and 'aspirations', and I am not sure how many of these are up for negotiation/triangulation when things get a bit hot.

'The post-bureacratic age' (or whatever) is fine, but, unless you've got a coherent plan to implement it, it's just more aspirational word-vomit, like the oft-repeated guff about 'what we have to do in Afghanistan'. A 16 year old with a copy of Kitson could tell you what we *need* to do: what we need is someone who can actually *do* it!

luke

Fascinating piece fraser. What i think it neglects is a recognition that so much of what cameron and cameronism is about is the continuation (some would say acceleration) of the blair legacy. Its a testament to the impact of blair on our politics that so much of cameron's agenda is defined by the philosophy and political positioning of blair.

That explains the NHS policy - show you care, embrace reform but not to threaten to basic offer to the public.

But it also explains their schools policy (which is pure blairism - parental power/choice but no selection or)

And on welfare and the big society its a direct replica of early blair, not just the policy but the language and presentation as well.

Dave B

How well did the Christmas gift subscription offer sell?

Chris lancashire

Does there have to be a Big Idea? What's wrong with careful,sound management of the economy, slimming big government and generally keeping out of the way and letting the populace get on with their lives?

Tom Burroughes

Number 7 writes:

"We all know you are doing the masters' bidding, But can you please change the record."

Fraser is nobody's toady, unlike some journalists I can think of (Kevin Maguire springs to mind).

Fraser is one one of the few right-leaning journalists to tell the Cameroons what needs to be said: get a philosophical backbone.

My fear is that unless DC and his allies at least try to argue the case for a smaller state and lower taxes, they will lack a sufficient political mandate to push through difficult change when things get tough.

My underlying fear is that DC is a hollow vessel. I am keen to be proven wrong.

Prodicus

Hmph.

So inside your purist theoretician head you want a Conservative win. Super. Care to join us out here in the real world when you have a moment? Care to put down some more positive pointers (like asking for another education speech - good) instead of running vote-repelling cartoons which John Prescott would fork out for personally, if he'd thought of them?

Don't make Nick Robinson's stunningly ignorant mistake of airily dismissing 'the bloggers and Tweeters'. He's clearly forgotten how Obama got the White House. This blog - and selective quotes from it - reach many more people than the printed magazine. And there are blogs and blogs. CoffeeHouse is far more important than a citizen blog. With the Spectator's/CoffeeHouse's status goes the sort of responsibility I can cheerfully live without. Noblesse obliges.

There's politics going on out here, Fraser, red in tooth and claw. If we fall short at the election and Labour should get another crack at us (and there are many people thinking that you would quite like that, to leave them to crash and burn in the coming horrors) your readers will ensure that the Spectator takes its share of the responsibility. Take my estimate of your clout as a compliment if you like. But think about your publisher thoughtfully placing your ABC certificate alongside that of the Staggers.

Just a thought.

Nicholas

What's it all about? Dunno. My copy is AWOL for the second week running.

Naomi Muse

Sorry! Missed something.

I did a search for "The Spectator (1828) manifesto" on the spekky web site and it couldn't find it.

A hyperlink would be a goodly thing..

Sancho

A mild form of libertarianism? Could that be it? If there is anything to be taken from that "comedy" When Boris Met Dave it is that Dave was never a political ideologue/obsessive like Boris. Sure I'd love to see a proper fundamentalist libertarian as PM to mirror my political stance...but to be honest, I'll take Dave for the moment.

And he might, just might get some cojones and steel after being elected.

DZ

Perhaps taking the time to read Hitchens massive blast on his blog would help Speccie writers to understand the direction that the herders want to take us.

John

Fraser
You and the other smart-arses who blog on this site can always find fault with a politician who has to be pragmatic to get into Downing Street, but I guarantee you'll lose readers. (I cancelled my subscription yesterday).
Fortunately, your bosses the Barclay Brothers won't be cross. They are friends of Gordon Brown and have deep pockets.

Ian Walker

Why tackle the NHS? It's a sacred cow, and people will get scared if you say you're going to touch it.

Do a brilliant job on education, then turn round to the electorate in five years time and say "Look what we did - give us your vote and we'll do it for Health as well. Instead of being worried about NHS reform they'll be begging you to for it.

bert

I think you can tell how people really feel about Nelson's article by the level of criticism directed at it - ie - there's a lot of truth in it.

Do the Tory voters here want a wholly uncritical Cameron fan club, or do they want a truthful, sometimes harsh, critique of reality - far more helpful in the long term?

Grow up, Tory voters.

General Zod

I didn't get my copy last week (the "have a drink" one and this week's hasn't shown up yet either.

I haven't even threatened to cancel my subscription yet.

Ian Stewart

Instead of moaning and groaning please, please give us your full support to get the Conservative Party elected this year. Nothing but nothing will change until this dreadful Labour Party is committed to being a rump Party in the North of England.
Your constant griping is annoying and does nothing to effect the changes that are desperately needed to get Britain back on its feet.

Victor Southern

bert - We Conservatives would not mind balanced viewpoints put out by Fraser Nelson but his blogs have ceased to be that. They are 99% critical of his every word, every deed and even what they assume to be his thoughts. No innuendo or supposition is beyond utilisation. He has a glass of champagne - bloody toff! Get the idea?

I can get that in the New Statesman or the Guardian - which by the way is not so unremittingly critical.

If he is attacked by the Loony Left and by the Heffer/Hitchens/Nelson cadre then he must be somewhere where he ought to be. That is in the mainstream of thought in the UK, not pandering to either extreme of political philosophy.

I suppose that Fraser is squeezed in this direction by his necessity to be consistent with what the News of the World will print. They certainly don't want any praise of Cameron.

wrinkled weasel

I heard Dave say one day that he eschewed "philosophies". That is a bit like saying "I don't believe in gravity"

Whatever he thinks, and evidently, it's not a lot, he has a philosophy. Clearly he is not aware of this, which is worrying. I think what he really meant is "I have no strong guiding principles".

So, in reality, this country is about to be run by a nice chap who has no concept that his "thinking" is the product of Western existentialism and pragmatism.

Simon Denis

Having opposed the die hards in many recent comments, I now take leave to applaud Mr Nelson's latest offering. What the Cameron cheer leaders fail to recognise is that a purely pragmatic approach is ultimately self-defeating. Petain was a supreme pragmatist, but it didn't really help him or his country in the end. Unless they fight for them, the Tory party's core ideas will continue to be marginalised and the whole point of its existence extinguished. I well recall how the BBC took advantage of Cameron's ratting on the grammar schools to present a pro-comprehensive agenda as balanced. Thus the whole consensus appears to take another sidestep to the left and the conservatives are bereft of another range of intellectual artillery. Part of the role of a political party is, after all, to represent opinions which may not be in the majority but still require democratic expression. It is the lack of such expression which is leading too many into the arms of the BNP over issues surrounding immigration, for example. Another important function of a political party is to maintain the honesty of debate. Can this really be said of a Conservative party which practises and advocates "positive" discrimination? And are the Cameron cheerleaders genuinely confident that the public supports this ideology? True the Beeb is biased in its favour, but capitulation to a left slanted agenda mollifies it hardly at all. It pockets the victory and pushes all the harder over something else. Hence, perhaps, the wobble over marriage. Where the emptiness of the "pragmatic" approach looks most glaring, however, is in the realm of health and the economy. Labour, hypocritical, divided and paralysed, can still get away with pointing out "black holes" precisely because the Tory party still refuses to acknowledge that big cuts will have to be made somewhere - that somewhere must surely be the top heavy, bureaucratic structures of medical supply. Alternatively, Cameron could offer a thoroughly cut down foreign policy - withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example - the Chamberlainite solution of prioritising health over military adventures. The yanks and the neocons might howl, but much of the country would applaud. We are all well aware that the threat is more likely to arise from modern Birmingham than remote Kabul. Alas, clever as he is, Mr Cameron doesn't have the intellectual daring. He is an establishment man, a public servant, ill suited to the increasingly raw and ideological tone which politics will acquire in the hard times about to befall us. This is not to say he should shout and splutter in the manner of Griffin, Balls and Gordon Brown, but merely to urge that the Coulson/Osborne line should prevail over Hilton's pastel shaded nullity. It was the thoroughly right wing promise over inheritance tax which brought back votes on the eve of the election which never was, remember. Were the Tories to offer a realistic path out of our current horrific indebtedness by reforming health and bringing our unhappy soldiery home they could sweep the country.

Athesius the Facilitator

Jackie Miller- You are spot on. I hope FN reads your blog. It may not influence him however. I believe there is an agenda that us punters are not aware of. Curious eh!

The Masked Marvel

What evidence is there that Cameron actually would be a "transformative" PM? Certainly there hasn't been much on display in his public performance. It still puzzles me why this magazine has been so enthusiastic about the man since his name was first mooted as party leader.

Everyone wanted him in because he was young and was willing to buy into a couple of trendy fads like Green activism, which was supposed make him more palatable to the BBC and their kind. Nobody worried too much at the time that he might not be a proper Conservative leader

Now what have you got? Other than tax cuts, Cameron's policies are much further Left than a proper Conservative should be. Too late to do anything about it now.

JONNY

If you were Tory Leader, Mr Nelson
and not just a journalist, you would have to quickly come to terms with some very hard arithmetic.
That at least 55% of the electorate will never ever in any circumstance you care to imagine vote Tory. (A figure that's gone up since Thatcher made the Tories so disliked).

That figure includes hard -core Labour, Lib-Dem, Nationalist, Green. And quite a few others who instinctively hate the Tory guts.

55% who are never going to vote for you.
And Cameron's getting a bit above 40%, of that possible 45. Because of his appeal to the liberal centre voter.
Stop re-reading your 1828 Manifesto.
Get out into the real world. And understand the subtle postioning on issue after issue any Tory Leader must have to take, if he accepts the purpose of politics is to gain power. And win over a working majority.
Because at the moment Mr Nelson
you look like a political columnist who doesn't understand his job.

Number7

@ Tom Burroughes.

I don't disagree with anything you said. DC would not be my choice as PM, I could reel of a string of "Notting Hill" ideas that I disagree with.

However, as has been alluded to elsewhere on this thread, The first objective is to depose the clowns we have in government at the moment.

Continually taking a pop at DC is likely to split the vote to the advantage of McBruin and the rest of Zanuliebore.

TGF UKIP

The problem is Fraser that Cameron, Osborne and Hilton approach politics as a forensic and intellectual exercise and likewise the analysis of their efforts by you and the other professional Westminster watchers is a similarly intellectual and analytical critical examination . That's why you so comprehensively fail to explain why the Cameron Tories can only manage a single figure poll lead against Britain's worst ever government.

The whole Cameron project is devoid of any visceral or emotional connection with the majority of the public, instead it has only a market research and forensically extrapolated basis. Dave viscerally identifies with few people and few can identify with him partly because of his background but mainly because the whole strategy appears to have been built round attracting solely a strategically important but small swing segment of voters. Not just the core Tory vote but small "c" sympathizers have been treated with contempt.

What has compounded this weakness is his hubris and instinctive cronyism. He was elected at a very young age and with no frontline political experience whatever but instead of gathering round him men who might compensate for these deficiences he went exclusively to his similarly young and inexperienced mates Osborne and Hilton.

Not for Dave a counterweight of impeccable Party connections and reputation like Prescott nor did he want anyone close to him with the populist savvy of a Campbell. Instead Dave lost no time in establishing his party within the Tory Party and an exclusively liberal and progressive metropolitan party it was, explicitly contemptuous of provincial conservative values and mores.

What is now most unfortunate, though, for the Tory Party is that it turns out that Osborne and Hilton weren't respectively the political master strategtist and master marketeer that Fraser Nelson and his fellow Tory hacks told us they were and that the brand detoxification line that they had swallowed and peddled hook line and sinker from the Mekon's minions was nowt more marketing gobbledook bullshit.

To fully comprehend Dave's failure as a political leader, Fraser, put the question to yourself this way. When Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan spoke of "our people" you knew, did you not, that they were speaking of not just their fair share ABs and C1s but a majority of C2s as well. Not just that but you had a pretty good composite picture in your mind of exactly who those C2s were.

Now try asking youself if Cameron, Osborne and Hilton referred to "our people" just who would they have in mind. See what I mean?

Now try asking

Now if C

Dave B

Janet Daley's written some good stuff lately:

"... all political promises of future policy are actually “hopes”? That parties in opposition can only be judged by their principles, their convictions, and their objectives which they will do their best to implement in the most conscientious way possible under whatever circumstances prevail when they take office, whereas parties in power must be judged on their records. Those old enough to recall what life was like before the “gaffe culture” will know that those were the assumptions on which the democratic process used to rely. They are still the only ones that make any sense of the business of voting for one party over another."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100021335/real-politics-is-not-about-gaffes/

John Richardson

'Jonny'

You explain that Thatcher 'made the Conservatives so unpopular'
She won three straight elections.
John Major, her successor, polled the largest ever post war vote; for the
Conservatives.
It is a Liberal Media 'narrative' that Thatcher was hated.
The facts are different.

John Richardson

'Jonny'

You explain that Thatcher 'made the Conservatives so unpopular'
She won three straight elections.
John Major, her successor, polled the largest ever post war vote; for the
Conservatives.
It is a Liberal Media 'narrative' that Thatcher was hated.
The facts are different.

John David Barnett

I may come back to reading the Spectator when Labour's new best friend Mr Nelson has been sacked.

Frank P

What Fraser does or doesn't say about won't make any difference to the outcome of the General Election. The punters are bored with the Moronic Brown. The reason that NuLab didn't choose him, as opposed to Blair in 1997 was because they knew he was unelectable. He had about a much charisma as a stale haggis. Time has not improved that and his idiotic posturing since usurping the top job; his complete ruination of the nation's economy and his deceit over the 'Lisbon Treaty' scam - when he crept in through a back door and signed the European Constitution document camouflaged as something else - was widely seen as treason among the ordinary folks I commune with daily. A man who was patently very strange even when he first appeared on the political scene as a long-haired, cock-eyed Marxist student, has become stranger and stranger as the years have passed. Most commentators on these blogs think Brown is clinically certifiable. I find this point of view quite generally expressed elsewhere, too. What are you Cameroons worrying about? I know the British electorate is a bit off whack from time to time. But remember, and I repeat - they voted for Blair, not Brown. Brown knew that when he chickened out and failed to obtain a popular mandate, soon after Blair was ousted and he was shoehorned in by the communist cabal that bullied the rank and file to accept him without a leadership election.

I sometimes get a little concerned, because Cameron has done nowt to justify his role as leader of the 'Conservative' Party. But the Tories will win the election because Britain is tired of NuLab, despises Brown, and knows that the only way to change things is to vote Tory this time. Whether they are right about that changing things, will only be shown by the passage of time. But change or not (in substantial terms) they know it is definitely time to clean out the augean stables. We'll see then how good the Etonian PR man is as Hercules wielding the shit-shovel. Fraser is right to urge him to get his act together, just in case 'events' give Prime Minister Asperger another break, but the Labour party is in disarray and simply cannot survive, short of a geopolitical miracle.

So what's wrong with letting the 'Prime Minister elect' know that his supporters are looking for signs that he deserves the open goal that lies before him? My objection is that this editorial stance is long overdue.
Those who advocate that Cameron must appeal to the leftist voters in order to get elected are misguided; some nailing of colours to the mast would rally the small c conservatives back to the polling booths, imho. The popular vote is predominately c.
Heads up, you trepidatious Tories. Stiffen your backbones. It's time to revert to the political default position - a conservative government. And DC - listen to Sailor Nelson It's good advice. A friend is no friend if he's not prepared to tell you the truth, even when it's critical.

Edward Sutherland

I may come back to reading the Spectator when I have a Spectator to read (rebate due on the subscription perhaps?) Your criticsms of DC would carry more weight, Fraser, if you ran a better business. The Economist don't seem to have this problem of actually getting its journal to their readers!

TomTom

The NHS will expand to absorb the entire GDP if not controlled. The rapidly increasing population fed by immigration is a major cost-driver and not balanced by revenues from the incomers who are large consumers of taxpayer-funded healthcare.

The NHS demands for cash will explode as more PFI projects come on stream as the whole system is now subject to internal cost-drivers which will ratchet budget needs ever upwards whilst leaving wards under-staffed

Peter From Maidstone

I find it hard to comprehend the unreasoning insistence from so many Tory supporters here that Cameron must be elected and will then hopefully become the politician we need him to be.

This is as reckless as marrying someone whose behaviour is annoying and whose attitudes are repellent and hoping that you will be able to change them after the marriage.

Or it is like a Tory Prime Minister declaring war on France and Tory supporters saying, we must go to war, our leader will tell us later what we are fighting for.

I have not found any critics of Cameron asking that he provide detailed content for every policy, but that he presents a philosophy which will inspire his government - not even an ideology - and that he will begin to provide an attractive and compelling narrative for the future. He is doing neither of these.

Thsoe who say, vote for Cameron and hopefully it will all turn out right are not conservatives, even of they are Tories. I am not a Tory, I am conservative. I have yet to be persuaded that Cameron is a conservative either, even though he may well be a Tory.

Someone suggests that we want a small government. I agree. But I don't believe it is possibel to find anything that suggests Cameron believes in small government. He seems rather to believe that he can steer the supertanker of state better than Brown did. That is essentially just socialism with a Tory face. It is not conservatism.

Conservatism is attractive and compelling, it is radical and dynamic. Toryism tends to be paternalistic, slow, full of inertia and unattractive. I am not a Tory. I am a conservative. I want Cameron to show that he can be a real conservative otherwise he really is just a Tory toff. The fact that he is unable to respond to the urgency of public anger shows that perhaps he is not simply keeping his powder dry but has nothing radical or popular to say.

Chuck Unsworth

"But we can't really applaud Cameron for “protecting” the NHS budget if we condemn Brown for doing the same."
You'd recognise the differences here, I think. Protection or increased spending? You'd also recognise the headline pledge, which is to 'protect' the NHS (not quite the same as protecting the budget). For that matter would you care to define the 'NHS'? It certainly seems to be a massive, labrynthine, organisation. My guess is that there actually will be cuts in some areas of the NHS, but there's quite a lot of flab. Remember Gerry Robinson's documentaries on the NHS and, more recently, Dementia care?

"It’s the intellectual concessions that dismay me the most, the way key elements of Brown logic (to care = to spend) are enthroned in the emerging Tory manifesto."
I don't think that's correct at all - witness my comment above.

"Are Brown’s ideas supposed to look so much better with a blue rosette? What’s so bad about a bold and distinctly conservative solution to the NHS, as radical as the policy on schools is now?"
Agreed, but that is to assume that different/radical = better and that these ideas are the intellectual property of (and originated by) Brown.

"The problem with Britain is not the men with red rosettes, but the intellectual poison of Gordon Brown’s ideas. That is what needs to change."
Well, yes. Your articles have certainly served remarkably well to expose these 'ideas' for what they are - smoke and mirrors - something of which I'd welcome much more.

"I really hope Cameron returns to form, makes an education speech (which he hasn’t for two whole years) and starts to clarify what he’s about. He did it in the last conference, but has allowed the fog to descend again. When it does, his poll ratings slump."
Again, that's an opinion - but whether his poll ratings are so directly (and entirely) attributable to these aspects is conjecture.

"The Spectator’s mission: to encourage Cameron to take the former path. It means praising him when we agree with him, and saying so when we don’t. There are plenty pro-Tory websites around that will fall in line with the party as the election nears."
OK, so what's your understanding of 'encourage', then?

"But we’re wedded to The Spectator (1828) manifesto here, and will be judging the Tories by it."
Could you be persuaded to judge them by something a little more recent - post Second World War, perhaps? I'd accept that principles are generally constant, but circumstances often change.

Peter From Maidstone

JONNY, your maths doesn't add up. It may well be that notionally 55% of the population will not vote Conservative, but actually that statistic is worthless.

If most of that 55% live in constituencies where there are large Labour majorities then their effect is neutralised. Liekwise, if a proportion of that 55% do not vote then their opinions are neutralised. Indeed we know that the majority of people who voted in England supported the Conservatives.

My father thinks Gordon Brown is a pretty good guy, and I have to try to avoid arguing with him because I think Brown is insane. But my father never reads the Spectator, nor are his opinions affected by what is on the Spectator website. However I do hope that Cameron is aware of what is posted here and in the magazine and will read it and develop some sort of a purposeful strategy. It is only then that he is likely to positively attract my father as a potential prime minister.

If everyone becomes a 'yes man' then how is Cameron able to hear conservative criticism? Most critics here would love him to become a leader with a compelling narrative. The objection is that he has not produced such a narrative and seems to be led by events. I hope that he becomes concerned that he is losing support, not because of ill-will but because of failures in himself which he needs to address.

To be silent at this time, and hope it will all be OK, is both anti-democratic (what sort of a manifesto says - vote for Dave and he'll let you know his policies after he is in power) and is anti-conservative (because it denies that conservative principles - not detailed policy statements - are required from a Tory leader if he is to be considered genuinely conservative and not self-serving).

sarah

Sorry Fraser. I really liked your factual and detailed articles, but really don't like the direction the Spectator has taken under your editorship.

I'm not advocating slavish uncritical admiration for the Tories, but for heaven's sake, give them a chance, and don't spend so much energy concentrating on the small details, such as perceived minor gaffes, to the detriment of the bigger picture.

Nick

There are numerous comments stating that Cameron's lack of proper Tory principles is the reason why he is doing so poorly in the polls compared to heavyweights like Margaret Thatcher.

PLease bear in mind that Thatcher's landslide post Falklands election victory in 1983 only secured 42.4% of the popular vote.

Tony Blair's even more massive landslide victory in 1997 was achieved with 43.2% of the popular vote.

Cameron is polling a solid 40%, despite the increased share for minor parties (as a reflection of stuff like the expenses scandal etc).

I don't think it reasonable to expect Cameron to be doing better than 40%.

I'm also sure that any move to restructure the NHS (which will be portrayed as destroying by the Opposition) may please many posters here but would lose a large number of centrist voters.

Fernando

My impression is that Cameron is exceptionally well versed in the writings of Conservative philosophers and in the successes and failures of past Conservative leaders. I’m especially pleased that he likes to quote from Michael Oakeshott and particularly from two essays; ‘Rationalism in Politics’ and ‘On Being Conservative’. Peter Oborne in my opinion captures the essence of what Cameron is about.
I think he is well aware of the challenges he’ll face in the next five years and the sacrifices we’ll need to make to overcome Brown’s disastrous legacy. If we are to get through it we’ll need someone who can communicate, who is willing to seek wide agreement on action, who isn’t dogmatic and who certainly doesn’t split the country into ‘our people’ and the rest.

Jeremy

Thanks for that, Fraser. I particularly enjoyed the pieces by David Selbourne and Peter Oborne.

Whilst we're about it, I see that this week's batch of cartoons are a significant improvement on those of the previous few weeks (the Christmas issue was especially unfunny in this regard). I sincerely hope that The Spectator is not losing its sense of humour. I also think that the cover illustrations have been a bit lacklustre of late. The last really good one was the Boris/Dave cover. I don't know who the artist responsible for it was, but for goodness sake get him back to do another one. And what about Nick Garland, Michael Heath and even Steve Bell? I haven't seen Spectator covers from any of them for ages. Please don't ignore the Top Talent, Fraser....

And I, too, would like to know what The Spectator (1828) Manifesto actually states.

perdix

Agreed Fernando. If we are to fully recover from our current national situation it will have to be based on "One Nation" approaches.Cameron strikes me as a person who, given a sufficient mandate, will make the hard decisions whilst trying to minimise the hurt to workers and families. (How he will square that circle I don't know).
Today I saw Labour MP Austin Mitchell on the PBR Debate argue for a massive injection of taxpayer money to create jobs in house building. The thought is noble but he forgets we have to borrow the money from "foreigners" and they will extract a price based on their perception of risk. Labour just don't get it.
Yes, and The Speccie is not what it was when I subscribed under editors Moore and Boris.

Blofeld's Cat

No 1 - Opposition politicians have no power to effect any policies.
No 2 - Opposition politicians do not have the counsel or restraining hand of the Civil Service.
No 3 - Opposition politicians do not have access to the "facts" in the same way as the governing party.

First get elected - if the country doesn't consider him good enough to elect him, then it doesn't matter a fig what Cameron is about, he won't have a chance to effect any policies, whether based on sound ideology or not.

My (wild, uneducated, baseless and possibly optimistic) guess is that most of the electorate have already pretty much made up their minds about who they will vote for (if they are going to vote at all). I wonder how many swing voters there really still are.

They just want to get on with it. Speaking for myself, of course.

TGF UKIP

9.15 pm I note that my 7.35 pm post re Hilton has not appeared. Not that I'm altogether surprised, plainly comments unflattering to the Mekon are verboten here.

Informed Giant

Agree with Number 7 - its very obvious what you are trying to do, especially as it is the complete opposite of your positions over the past few years. Not good enough.

JONNY

John Richardson,
Yes Thatcher won 3 Elections (like Blair). But like him too she became bitterly hated by huge sections of the population.
Those who loved her, loved her.
The rest hated her guts, in a way they never did with MacMillan or Heath. She changed the perception of the Tory Party and did it huge damage. The greedy nasty non-compassionate party.
Major was liked and won precisely because he was seen as a decent moderate man. And not Thatcher. Cameron is now attacked because he is trying to restore One Nation Toryism. Maybe not 'The Big Idea'journalists seek. But the only way to regain government

djw2009

Fraser, it is jolly decent of you to put the articles on the web owing to the snow. Thank you. I am delighted the Spectator is not just some kind of "echo" of the Conservative Party - and I am glad Matthew Ancona has moved on, let me add - this magazine is and ought to maintain an intellectual role, and not just be a propaganda sheet. I like the way the magazine is going, and may just subscribe!

Holly ......

Before the Labour debacle Tory lead 9pts
After the Labour debacle Tory lead 12pts.
That in English means the Tories are STILL ahead of Labour.
The public are itching.

lawrence greek

Fraser

The most salient comment above is the one that suggest you try to influence him after the election. The Labour vote share has been on the rise because of a noticeable hardening in their support, a coming together, a 'we hate Brown, Blair, their wars and betrayal of socialism but we will put that aside to stop the Tories'.

You, sadly, have gone the other way. At a time when we need a hardening of Tory support - purely to ensure we rid this country of Brown - there is a ramping up of the criticism of Cameron that is lending itself to a media perception that the Tories are on the slide.

I absolutely agree with you about the NHS, but you aren't going to get Cameron to change direction on the NHS now. The public at large are still sceptical of electing another Tory government. The NHS commitment is a totem, a symbol that this Tory government would break from the past. If that is the price to pay for being rid of Brown, I'll pay it. And pay it. And pay it.

Please, please get with the real world. Stop with the Heffer nonsense. Start with it when the election is won and Brown is gone. The Tories only need five years to largely reverse the total car wreck this country has become, but they can't do it from opposition or in some monstrous hung parliament.

Bite you tongue for six months, help us get rid of Brown. Please.

Teck Khong

Of course, no one is perfect but frustration with David Cameron is probably because he is more astute than the criticisms of his nebulae of ideas have you believe. Contrary to any denial, David Cameron is a living political organism that is growing steadily, feeding on substrates that are constantly being sucked in, filtered and sanitized from a range of gathering systems.

The next growth spurt will come once he’s in No 10 and various policies in the future will have no consistent ideology but will be guided and defined only by evolving necessities; that is I believe the essence of Cameroonism.

JohnAnt

"He could change Britain as much, if not more, than Thatcher. Or he could lose confidence, be cautious - and do nothing."
Isn't this the problem? Cameron could go in any direction, or none, because he cannot show he has any core values - despite all those family photos at lych gates. I know people who live in his Oxfordshire area: farmers, publicans, owners of rural businesses. Basically conservative in their make-up (whatever they vote), and they all have more to say and project more sense of conviction and individualist self-reliant know-how than he ever could. Cameron often seems simply a mouthpiece for the moneyed, the metrosexual, the centrist, statist, status-quo-ist. Haven't they got enough spokespersons already?

Fergus Pickerijng

Of course Cameron doesn't need an ideology of his own. The Tory way of thinking, admirably expounded by Michael Oakeshott, will do very well. Ideology is inimical to Toryism. Even Maggie herself got boring when in ideological mode. She was much better at off-the-cuff stuff like the handkerchief over the British Airways tailplane, or the remark that she didn't see why immigrants should get council houses ahead of native British people, or the 'Rejoice!' after the successful end to the Falklands war. If she hadn't been so ideological she would never have pushed on with the silly poll tax which killed her off.

Ideology is a nasty leftist sort of a thing. Toryism is about experience of life and feelings in your bones. Of course it bloody is. Scotchmen, though admirable in some ways, lack this essentially English pragmatism. Sorry Fraser. I'm half Scotch myself, but I do my best to fight against it. Heart not head, my dear chap.

Paul Hawkins

I suggest we had had 12 years of Big Ideas,with a large price tag usually -look where that has got us -just some steady sensible reform please and an end to headline driven strategy

THX1138

TGF now would that be the same Steve Hilton that coined the phrase "Broken Society" and has been arrested for "disoder" after calling a ticket inspector a "wanker"? And on the way back from a Tory conference where Dave had just made a major speech denouncing an "angry, harsh culture of incivility" to boot.

Now of course we mustn't condemn these troubled individuals. We must reach out & Hug a Hilton..

THX1138

Well according to man that used to sit in your chair before the "great row" "David Cameron has made the Tories fit for office again"- D'Ancona goes on to say this in The ES:

"The principal preoccupation of the Cameroons has been to bring an unelectable party, heavily defeated in three successive general elections, back to the brink of power. In retrospect, it is easy to mock all the greenery, husky-hugging, “call-me-Dave” photo-ops, and pictures of the Shadow Cabinet painting community centres. Traditional Tories have raged at the Cameroons' obsession with the background, gender and ethnic mix of Tory parliamentary candidates. But the strategy has worked. It got the Conservatives back to the table"

http://is.gd/5StxW

Is the new editor trying to put a some clear blue water between him and his predecessor?

Vulture

@JONNY:
Your political heroes are very revealing.

MACMILLAN: A snaggle-toothed old Etonian cuckold burdened ( like Dave) by a guilt-complex about his wealth, leading him to let spending inflation rip as PM and laying the grounds for the economic disasters of the 1960s.

EDWARD 'Three day week' HEATH: Well, need I say more? An utter disaster as a man, a politician, and as PM: he lost three elections out of the four he fought. Everything he touched turned to shite and he lied his head off to get Britain into his beloved EU.

JOHN MAJOR: Again, need I say more? A man so colourless and ineffectual that he became PM merely by virtue of what he was not. 'Moderate' and 'decent' perhaps, but totally useless too. He didn't win the 92 election - Kinnock lost it.

What is missing from your heroes is the quality that Thatcher had in spades: leadership. Our condition is now so desperate that we need a real leader : and Dave isn't it.

Fergus Pickering

I do think, Vulture, that to criticize Macmillan for his teeth and his wife's screwing around with Boothby is somewhat unworthy. Would it have been better if he, like the dreadful Kennedy, or Lloyd George? ... well, you can see where this is going. It is entirely possible that Disraeli swung both ways, but that doesn't stop him being a great man and a great Tory, does it? Or does it?

Wrinkled Weasel

Ok Coffee Housers, if Dave has such a wonderful and coherent set of ideas in a simple and logical framework, define "Cameronism" in one sentence.

Vulture

@Fergus,
You are right - a low blow. I apologise.
Though I do think it says something for the man's weak and vacillating character that he put up with it for decades without complaint - and even awarded his cuckee ( if that's the word) a peerage, I believe.

And I could have also criticised him for being a closet Socialist in the 1930s; for stabbing Eden in the back over Suez; and for being totally out of touch with the realities of contemporary Britain - as demonstrated by the Profumo affair. He clearly didn't understand women or sex.

On the plus side, he was wounded on the Somme - and for that I can forgive a man almost anything.

JONNY

Exactly Vulture,
your assessment of these previous Tory PMs
is both witty and not inexact.
It all comes down to - do we want the Fuhrer Prinzip over here? Is the country in the mood to take your Strong Leader?
Someone the other day even prayed for the return of King Oliver (not you I think).
seem to have read - 8 years of him and the whole country went berserk when Charlie Boy came home to his own.

Vulture

@JONNY
Thanx. I actually think leadership counts in democracies as well as dictatorships.
People will vote for strong leaders, though I accept your argument that Thatcher alienated loads of people too. I would argue, however, that the constituencies she alienated ( eg. the Trade Unions, the Argies, the Scots, and Hampstead thinkers like Harold Pinter) were less electorally important than those she attracted: the middle-classes and the C2s.

Having said all that, I think that the lack of leadership in the current political class ( all parties) leaves us in a screaming void. And nature abhors a vacuum.

So yes, shockingly, I would favour the Army taking over for a while ( as the Turkish army, for instance, has repeatedly done) to purge a corrupt political class. In some sense the army is the guardian of Britain's soul - besides being about the only institution in this heap of decay that still works well.

As it happens, I am seeing Gen. Dannatt ( my candidate for the new Cromwell) shortly and will ask him why he didn't use his tanks constructively when he had the chance.
Our boys would be a lot more use here than in Afghanistan.

And I would love to see the Govt. transferred from Whitehall to Wembley stadium - and susbsequently to that Scottish island contaminated by anthrax - expecially in this weather.

As for Ollie himself - he was Britaion's most brilliant soldier ( never lost a battle despite never fighting before he was 40) and a great statesman. And he turned down the chance of becoming King on principle. He did have a humour deficit, though, I admit.

Rocketdog

This blog has unearthed a few fundamental truths. Politicians care more about power than ideas, and that we don't necessarily vote for for them because of what they say, but because of what they stand for. The presentational problem that Dave seems to face is that it is difficult to discern what he stands for superficially, and viscerally it is never going to work with his background and plebs like me unless he comes out and starts saying and doing things which I agree with. This would suit Gordon as he then gets his 'class war' (sic) and can start throwing words around like 'denier' and 'racist.' My simple analysis has Dave sitting on the fence, hoping not to upset anyone so that he can slip into the gerrymandered marginals - at which point he can then start showing us what he is really made of. It is a gamble for him. Bet on the nation (read English) to come out in a sensible vote for the opposition while refraining from upsetting potential waverers. This is what I think that some at least of the bloggers here think as well.

What bother me is which side are you on Fraser? Since Ancona went I have had to hold my nose a couple of times when reading the Speccie. I may not agree, but I shouldn't have to hold my nose. Your statement about Cameron was unequivecol but it still has a touch of the Milliband about it. There is such a thing as being too clever. These are serious times and I for one, like to feel that my 'intelligence' is straight and not spun on someone elses political agenda. You are not giving me that feeling

bert

This notion that Cameron and the Tories should be miles ahead in the polls is entirely fatuous.

The public will never give a government of any colour a whopping landslide ever again, after the Blair deception.

A solid 10-12% is as much as Cameron can hope for - especially when you consider no newspaper or media outlet is overtly pro-tory. The Daily Mail is, if anything, unashamedly pro-Brown.

It is odd though, that william hill's have CUT Labour's odds of winning the next election from 11/1 to 10/1. Seems to be totally counter-intuative.

Peter From Maidstone

I certainly don't believe that the Conservatives have become electable because of Cameron or because they have become touchy feely. Despite the liklihood that I will vote Conservative it is not because I think that the Conservatives are very capable, or that I should vote for them and hope it all truns out OK.

Every time CCHQ interferes in the choice of a candidate it makes me less supportive not more. People are not so stupid that they cannot see through such attempts at manipulation. Will I vote Conservative because the new candidate is not White? Will I not vote Conservative because the new candidate is not White? In fact neither are true or important. I am tempted to not vote Conservative because the new candidate does not appear to be a conservative. That seems entirely reasonable.

The Conservatives are on the edge of success only because Labour is so utterly useless and corrupt. I would happily vote for William Hague as leader, and even when I was a socialist I always found him rather likeable.

I am more than willing to give Cameron a chance if he tells me what he believes in. It is not enough to be a pragmatist. If you want to be pragmatic then you must still have some end in view. Unless Cameron want to pragmatically gain as much power and influence for himself - at least that would be a principle that he worked by.

If he has no principles or philosophy then it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to be pragmatic, whatever his supporters say here. It would only mean that he was constantly busy without knowing why.

I do wish he would develop an attractive narrative that he believes in. It doesn't have to reflect all my own principles but it must surely reflect some or there is no reason for me to vote for him.

He could say 'I believe that the state should always be there to help those who cannot help themselves, but that when it has grown so large that it only exists for itself then something has gone wrong. We must make sure that the state does not stand in the way of each person making the best of themselves, that it does not suck up so much of the wealth of our nation that we are all impoverished by it, and that it helps those who are in need without making them slaves of the system, unable to ever escape'.

I'd go with something like that as a start. It can easily and robustly be defended as confirming the role of the state, and it doesn't present any particular policies, but it expresses a conservative world-view.

What is required is for Conservatives to start responding to Labour attacks by stating simply, 'that is a lie and you are a liar'. What they seem to do is get flustered and start trying to accomodate themselves to Labour-speak.

Now is the time for Cameron to express his own world-view.

A people without vision will perish, as the Scripture says.

TGF UKIP

THX 1138, congratulations on getting your Hilton post past the censor. We can only assume that, given the hour, Head Censor Forsyth was still a-bed and that your post slipped through. Clearly Hilton has joined Branson as a Coffee House unmentionable.

I do hope, therefore, that you do appreciate all the embarrassment and trouble you will have caused Never Neather with your reference to what is obviously no more than over-tired and over-emotional behaviour by a member of the triumvirate. (I've long thought we could do with another George brown in our public life)The Mekon's revenge on Fraser will I'm sure, though, be quite dreadful.

For my part I quite understand now why Fraser has made no reference to the Hilton Strategy Bulletins posted on the FT blogsite. Not surprisingly like most of us he probably didn't understand them. While coming from Nairn he might indeed "have the Gaelic" but what he probably doesn't have, though, is "the gobbledegook."

PS Interesting to see d'Arsehole maintaining a close proximity to Dave's backside and seeking to maintain the Mekon's myth of "brand detoxification."

El Sid

Hear hear Fraser.

The Cameroons seem to think that because a relative lack of policies got Blair elected in 1997, that they should avoid any mention of what they might do come 7th May. The two problems with this are that a) New Labour still had a "brand", people had a fair idea of how the new government would approach problems as yet unknown. And b) - it could be argued that this lack of preparation was the cause of the "lost Parliament", where Blair failed to tackle so many of the key problems, or tackled them at such a trite level that they had to be sorted out again within a few years. It's the domestic equivalent of successfully invading Iraq, and then losing the "peace" afterwards, but at least Blair had the luxury of a booming economy, the deficit means that Cameron has to get things right first time.

Worcester woman (what's her equivalent in 2010 - Tooting totty or Birmingham babe?) hasn't heard of the Spectator, let alone read it - but Polly Toynbee and Nick Robinson may. It's not the Speccie's job to do the job of conservatives.com but to influence the terms of the debate in the wider media. The Speccy should be about conservatism, not the Conservatives. And if Fraser can shift it just a little bit towards radical small-statism then he's doing the country a service in the long-term. I'm not talking about slavish devotion to Carswell-Hannanism here but political debate is crippled at the moment because it is in thrall to Blair-Brownism.

As has already been mentioned, part of the Labour "branding" was the "reassuring" presence of ugly mugs with (often utterly misguided, prehistoric but visible) "principles" in the background of Blair, not least Brown himself. The Cameron "principles problem" is more about the perception of pygmies around him - particularly Osbourne but I've gone on about him enough in the past. The Shadow Cabinet need to stand up and be counted.

Part of the problem is that we are in an age of managerial tweaking rather than obvious "big ideas", but those tweaks just sound rather silly in isolation without some coherent big ideas to hold them together. For instance there's the germ of a Tory energy policy in Greg Clark's (who? See the problem?) response in the Energy Bill debate before Christmas (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2009-12-07b.57.3 ). It's timid and unimaginative (an example of the wider problem), but even so, you're not going to excite anyone with offshore extensions to the National Grid, energy efficiency and easing planning constraints on gas storage projects. And the commentariat have already had their giggles at the government scheme to encourage loft insulation - but noone came back with the stunning stat that 70% of British houses don't have loft insulation. Instead you hammer away at ideas like Labour dithering on keeping the lights on, reducing our need for (unpopular) new power stations and importing foreign gas etc. Which in turn feeds into bigger ideas of making UK plc more efficient and reducing the trade deficit.

More generally - I think people would forgive the Tories a bit of policy if there was just more inspiration - more hope. The tenor of the times may be less "Things can only get better" and more "We'll make things a bit less grim than they would be under Labour", but for instance, where's the great thrust about how to get the economy growing again? Labour aren't interested as they just regard the private sector as a milch cow to be harvested until it dies. Surely empowering entrepreneurs should be at the heart of what the Conservatives do, not how their money should be spent on others?

And even on spending, stop giving in to the Labour language of cuts. When the credit cards have been cut up, you have to stop going to Waitrose and learn to shop at Lidl - but you still don't let your family starve. Use the language of supermarkets to paint Labour as getting the same service at a luxury price. Examples of profligate spending ping up on red discs with "Every penny counts". Highlight some egregious example of waste then "This is not just a benefits/defence/education policy, it's a Labour benefits/defence/education policy." People are sick of Broon's obssession with celebrities, we need ASDAprice government, not Katie Price government.

A. Headhunter

Hmmm. Does Cameron have the cojones? That, my man, is the big question. I SO want Peter Oborne (Speccie last week) to be right. I am not optimistic - too many eggs, not enough baskets..............