A Grieve set of issues
James Forsyth 11:40am
David Cameron wasted no time in appointing Dominic Grieve yesterday but it might be a case of act in haste, repent at leisure. I’m picking up considerable concern in Conservative circles about Grieve’s appointment for the following reasons.
1). It unbalances the front bench: If one thinks of the Tory front bench as a see-saw, David Davis and William Hague balanced out David Cameron and George Osborne. While Cameron and Osborne were young, southern, privileged, modernisers, David Davis and William Hague were more experienced, sat for northern seats, came from humble backgrounds and were perceived as traditional Tories. Replacing Davis with Grieve, a barrister who was educated at Westminster and Oxford and sits for a Buckinghamshire constituency, upsets that balance. The problem is particularly acute because William Hague is not as visible as he could be. Who on the Tory front bench now speaks to the C2s?
2). Grieve is a passionate supporter of the European Convention on Human Rights. In his maiden speech, Grieve proposed incorporating it into English law—not an idea that is popular with many Tory MPs. Some now fear that Grieve will block any attempt to roll back ‘the human rights agenda’, something that the Tories need to do to make many of their policies work.
3). He’s another resignation risk: As Fraser wrote back in November 2007, Grieve is not above threatening to quit if he doesn’t get his way. There are worries that Grieve is now in a phenomenally strong position to threaten resignation whenever he is not getting his way as Team Cameron can not afford to lose another shadow Home Secretary.
4). Grieve’s record on Islamism is worrying: Grieve has called the 7/7 bombings “totally explicable”, he has spoken a meeting organised by the British Muslim Initiative which peddles a separatist agenda and is regarded as the leader of the pro-MCB faction within the party.
5). Is he a good enough media performer for the job? The shadow Home Secretary needs to be able to channel the country’s anger about crime and revulsion at particularly heinous acts. One wonders whether Grieve is the best man for this job. Is he capable of fronting the kind of brilliant anti-crime campaigns that Andy Coulson, who has a natural feel for this issue, likes to run?
It would be no surprise if Grieve was not shadow Home Secreatary at the next election.
Previous
Comments
William Norton
June 13th, 2008 12:06pmI know that it's pretty standard these days to muck about with local government and its boundaries, but when did they move Beaconsfield to Kent?
Steve
June 13th, 2008 12:08pmHe also never bothers to check what the party line is before opening his mouth and has a rather bad habit of giving interviews on things that he is not responsible for. He is a time bomb that will cause the party considerable embarrassment.
ACT
June 13th, 2008 12:12pmWouldn't it be easier James just to let the Gover post this stuff himself?
Tina
June 13th, 2008 12:23pmI cannot understand Cameron's thinking in appointing Grieve. The Home Office which deals with crime, immigration, terrorism etc is one of the most (if not thee most important) offices of state. He just does not have the public profile and represents an elite lawyer style.
STAN, UK
June 13th, 2008 12:27pmOne thinks of the calibre of politician that the public like as Home Secretary, Blunkett, Clarke(Kenneth and Charles), Howard, Reid and to some extent Smith. Compared to these Grieve just does not measure up and is not right for this high profile position.
NOT A GRIEVE SUPPORTER
June 13th, 2008 12:28pmDoes anyone in the wider public know who this man is?
Sally
June 13th, 2008 12:32pmMy God what you have written about him and his form (above), is truly shocking. Sounds to me Livingstone could be classed as more right wing than Grieve! Labour will tear him apart, in the court of public opinion.
Paul, Cheshire
June 13th, 2008 12:44pmWhy did Cameron not use this opportuntiy to bring back Ken Clarke to the shadow cabinet? A big beast to land a knock out blow on Labour. As it is we are facing not a labour v tory fight but TORIES V MURDOCH PRESS, a total disaster.
Paul, Cheshire
oldtimer
June 13th, 2008 12:56pmYou need to get your facts right. For starters Grieve is the MP for Beaconsfield in south Bucks. He also happens to my MP.
Carol-Ann
June 13th, 2008 1:04pmThere may be trouble ahead......
David
June 13th, 2008 1:05pmAbsolutely agree.
Personally I wish Cameron had appointed Chris Grayling as SHS. He knows how to take the fight to Labour and he's the best attack dog we've got. He would've made Jackie Smith's life a nightmare.
James Forsyth
June 13th, 2008 1:05pmOldtimer, sorry got caused with a Kentish town with a simmilar-sounding name. But the point about it being a Southern seat still stands,
Tony
June 13th, 2008 1:08pmTotally agree with Paul, Ken Clarke would have been perfect as shadow home sec. If he had been appointed it would have put the fear of God into Labour.
TIM
June 13th, 2008 1:15pmCAN SOMEONE PLEASE SAVE THE TORIES FROM THEMSELVES! THIS MAN PERSONIFIES THE TERM 'OUT OF TOUCH ELITES'!
ANNOYED, FURIOUS
June 13th, 2008 1:22pmKelvin most certainly will not win, but this will give Murdoch the chance to put the Conservtives under pressure and make them announce their policies. I feel this is bad news.
rah
June 13th, 2008 1:28pmDominic Grieve is a decent politician who takes a reasonable approach to issues and gives honest answers to questions asked of him. He is not only the right appointment as Shadow Home Secretary for the Party but he will be popular with the public and will help restore trust in politicians generally and Conservatives in particular.
Danielle
June 13th, 2008 1:28pm'Serially disloyal, he had talked privately about knifing Mr Cameron and seizing the crown when the moment was ripe.
His petulant grandstanding has diverted attention from Gordon Brown’s leadership woes.
And it has stopped the Tory march to power in its tracks.'
Just a couple of sentences about David Davis from today's Sun newspaper editorial. Cameron is going to come under severe pressure from the media now as they now have the narrative they have been craving. To my mind he has failed the first test by appointing such a nonentity as Grieve to such a massive brief.
Short the UK
June 13th, 2008 1:32pmThis whole epsiode is complete madness. Has someone at Labour spiked DD's tea with LSD? He looks a fool. If Kelvin runs I would vote for him - why the hell not? DG will not connect with the public, he is very heady - not enough gut. This epsiode will turn out to be a sideshow as the economy collapses.
Jessica
June 13th, 2008 1:32pmThe type of person that is suited to the role of Attorney General (although after reading your post on Grieve I question his appointment even in that role) is not the same type of person required for Home Secretary. Example: Blair would never have made John Reid Attorney General and Lord Goldsmith Home Secretary.
Victoria
June 13th, 2008 1:47pmWho do you want as Shadow Home Secretary? How about someone intelligent, decent and hard-working who has the ability to run rings around Jacqui Smith? David Cameron rates Dominic Grieve very highly; I'm surprised at how many people seem to think they know better - you may not have heard much about him yet - but give him a chance!
Jam
June 13th, 2008 1:50pmDoes anyone know what the reaction of the shadow cabinet is to all this Davis stuff? I'm referring in particular to Osborne, Gove, Hague etc.
North East Tory
June 13th, 2008 3:08pmAnother posh lad promoted because of where he went to school rather than what he can actually do. Does this make everyone in the Shadow Cabinet bar Hague from fee paying schools??
Pandora
June 13th, 2008 3:10pmI'm not surprised. This appointment neither looks nor smells quite right. Even - dread word - maverick? I'm sure DG has many fine qualities but they don't seem those required here. KC would be perfect. The public, when they look at this mess, will be confused. Clarity is needed and I fear this is not it. Have the barmy army emerged yet?
TGF UKIP
June 13th, 2008 5:57pmThe one thing you are far too nice to also point out James is Grieve's unfortunate appearance. Looks and image count in politics even more than substance (hence New Labour's painstaking and successful attempts on cosmetics) and Grieve has a most unfortunate appearance. He really does look and sound, like a prissy, priggish, pettifogging pc lawyer.
Being a PR man one would think Dave would rate appearance as a very important requirement. But obviously not especially as someone who looks and sounds like a deputy assistant junior bank manager is the Shadow Chancellor.
Grieve is a perfect fit for the Cameron Tory Party which obviously considers C2s, conservatives and Northerners to be an irrelevance.
old nemo
June 13th, 2008 9:51pmKen Clarke has sulked for years at the very time the party needed all the help it could get. There is no way he should be rewarded now and in addition he is way way more out of touch than Grieve. I cannot understand why anyone would suggest him.
Good luck to Mr Grieve and please don't let Michael Gove anywhere near the home office.
James
June 14th, 2008 1:52pmThis column and many of the comments is a load of tosh. Grieve is one of the most respected figures inside and outside the house in his brief. He is not well-known because the position of Shadow Attorney General is not a role which attracts much opportunity for public comment. I am confident his performance to come will silence his critics. This is a good, solid choice by Cameron - there's no point in paying attention to peripheral considerations of background, propensity to resignation etc. What we need is the right person for the job - that person is Dominic.
Lou Coatney
June 17th, 2008 1:18amAt least Dominic Grieve had the integrity to place a Parliamentary Question about the uncompleted inquest into the apparent murder -- no fingerprints on the "suicide knife"?? -- of Dr. David Kelly, a few years ago.