Home > Susan Hill

Sunday 27 May 2012

Country Cameron

Thursday, 3rd December 2009

David Cameron’s constituency begins only up the road from here. He is occasionally to be seen at the weekends in a nearby market town and his family go to the village church. As a man, he is well liked, as is his family and the sad death of their eldest son, Ivan, was taken very much to heart by his neighbours.

His has long been a Tory constituency – the previous MP, before he defected, was Sean Woodward – as is the one in which I vote. The country is a very traditional place and Labour, Old or New, would never get a toehold, though people will often vote for an independent candidate who seems sound on local cum rural issues especially at District Council elections. So neither Cameron nor our MP need have qualms about getting back – as safe seats go these are cast-iron. Yet if you ask around, as I often do, what people think of Cameron as a politician and a future Prime Minister, the personal liking changes to scepticism. Yes, they will vote for him because they would vote for Mickey Mouse in a blue rosette, but what do they really think?

I asked a few well to-do ‘county’ folk. The consensus among them was that DC seemed a pleasant enough chap but that unfortunately he was turning out to be a ‘wet liberal’ or ‘soft-leftie’ – or more richly rude versions of those phrases. They want Maggie back and there’s an end to it. These are die-hard, old fashioned Tories who would not bring back hanging but have strong right-wing views on just about everything else. They don’t even mind gays though they are not happy about having their party court the pink vote so blatantly but otherwise they are relaxed about the whole gay issue, probably because it has long been an established part of aristo family life. But they do very seriously fear Dave will indeed be, as he promised ‘the heir to Blair’ and worse, they fear that although he has a cottage in the constituency, he is at heart a Notting Hillite - and other than calling him an Islingtonian there is no worse insult. Not only does he not really know about the country, he doesn’t much care about it, though he will repeal the hunting ban because it’s an easy vote winner.

I spoke to other kinds of country people too, those who work on the land, and tenant farmers, some village neighbours. They’re quite used to my being nosey about their politics and certainly not of my mother’s belief that you should never ask questions on the subject any more than you should ask about religion, sex, or personal hygiene.

What I wanted to know was, although they would vote for Dave do they trust him and do they believe there will be serious changes down the line, to restore traditional Conservative values, if he gets in?
To a man/woman they said they would have agreed he could be trusted UNTIL he backtracked on his promise of a referendum on Europe. That really did for Cameron and I wonder if he yet realises quite how badly it played among ordinary Tory voters.

Change? Nope, they didn`t believe there would be much change. The financial mess he will inherit must be sorted out and nobody will blame him if the medicine is bitter and has a long lingering after-taste, just as they don’t blame him for the mess in the first place. But nobody expects traditional Toryism to return, perhaps ever. They just laugh at the wilder shores of Cameron’s Green antics, they want smaller government and less interference and fear that his government would be every bit as big as the New Liebour ones and only marginally less interfering.

But so far as DC’s having been to Eton and married a rich wife from a posh background - the whole money/private education/class thing Labour are so anxious to make capital out of - well, country people of all shapes and sizes, ages and incomes simply regard it as irrelevant. They simply don’t care a toss.

Country people are well used to toffs of the old-fashioned variety – ( they don’t go for the jumped-up nouveau-riches, which is why they loathed Sean Woodward.) They know how to get on with toffs and how to fall out with them. Cameron can at least take a bit of comfort from that.

Previous Back to Susan Hill Next

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (20)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Dave B

December 3rd, 2009 12:45pm Report this comment

I don't think Mr Cameron did backtrack on a promise over Europe. He always said that the situation would change if the Constitution/Lisbon was ratified by all member states.

At that point, the UK could no longer stop Lisbon, a referendum on Lisbon would instead be an in/out referendum on our EU membership. I'd like to have an in/out referendum, but it's not something Mr Cameron ever promised.

Wily Trout

December 3rd, 2009 1:11pm Report this comment

I remember the first charges of 'nanny state' were made against Virginia Bottomley when she was Health Minister. This was in Major's Conservative govt.

SUSAN HILL

December 3rd, 2009 2:27pm Report this comment

Interesting and thanks for the clarification Dave. Most people perceive, as I did, that he promised a in or out referendum then reneged. Perhaps in this case he needs to do some clarification himself.

Augustus

December 3rd, 2009 4:28pm Report this comment

If both main political parties are 'wet liberals' or 'soft lefties', what in Heaven's name is the point of the 'Punch and Judy' politics so publicly displayed by Cameron at PQT, and yet so scorned by him when he became leader? It's all so childish. A clash of hornless cattle farting in the wind.

Paul B

December 3rd, 2009 4:47pm Report this comment

Many of those who would like to see the return of Maggie (I would be one of those) would prior to her election have yearned for the return of MacMillan and would have secretly been muttering about having a female leader.

Lets give the lad a chance. At present his job is to get elected, then and only then will be able to judge what sort of PM he is

Sean

December 3rd, 2009 7:05pm Report this comment

Dave's most recent blog: "The Copenhagen summit is of historic importance", didn't exactly endear him to the Tory faithful either, as a glance at the comments will show:

http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/11/27/the-copenhagen-summit-is-of-historic-importance/

Beer Moth

December 3rd, 2009 7:54pm Report this comment

Perhaps tangential, but please tell me how capital punishment is given as 'right-wing'?

EC

December 3rd, 2009 8:52pm Report this comment

Beer Moth,

Good point. In the case of hanging it's not a question of left or right, but rather up and down. I hope that helps.

BTW. If things get too hot up north, then Clifford is welcome to hide out at my place. Plenty of 'greys' down here! He'll find the batter a bit of disappointment though.

Jeremy

December 3rd, 2009 9:24pm Report this comment

If the leader of the Conservative Party will not defend the independence and sovereignty of the nation then what, pray, is the Conservative Party for?

Peter From Maidstone

December 4th, 2009 9:56am Report this comment

Surely a prospective prime minister should honestly lay out his stall and ask for people to support what he is proposing. It seems pretty stupid to elect somebody on the basis of 'Let's give them a chance and see what they do'. Why don't we elect Ed Balls and see what he does? Or one of the Milliband brothers and see what they do?

If I have a rapidly decreasing confidence that Cameron is going to do anything I support then it would be foolish of me to vote for him simply on the basis that he is not Brown. However much I want to get Brown out I do not want the Conservatives in if they are going to pursue the same agenda.

I am willing to be convinced that they will be different, but presently I see no evidence that they will be. The man last night on QT, who I don't know and can't be bothered to look up, was pathetic and presented the Conservative party very weakly indeed.

Bunnykins

December 4th, 2009 12:32pm Report this comment

If, as we are told, the Lisbon Agreement has emasculated Westminster, then what is the real choice 'twixt Labour and Conservative? From my perspective down here at the bottom of Africa, it seems that unless a party is elected with a clear mandate to leave Europe (which I assume is remote) the choice of Brown or Cameron is merely window dressing. Is this a reasonable assumption, or can someone 'put me straight'?

Beer Moth

December 4th, 2009 12:37pm Report this comment

Thanks EC much appreciated. The batter is not a problem. Bitter experience has taught us never to travel without the wife does us up a mix.

Fergus Pickering

December 5th, 2009 3:44am Report this comment

No he didn't promise an In?OUT referendum, Susan. Or I don't think so. What I supposed he promised was a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He doesn't want an IN/OUT referendum because he fears it would vote OUT and he doesn't want out, though Mr Hague might very possiblywant this. Of course opinions can change. I think your friends, and more power to their beefy elbows, may possibly forget that Maggie was originally seen as the heir to Sir Keith Joseph (indeed she more or less said so) and he was not a darling of the right. Indeed, it was events - Scargill, the Falklands, that propelled her ever rightwards. In the end it proved too far and she was defeated by Heseltine and succeeded by Major, both on the left side of the party. As a rule Labour are led sucessfully from the right of their party (electorally at least) - Attlee, Gaitskell, Callaghan, Blair - nd the Tories from the left of theirs - Macmillan, Heath, Major and, now I trust, our Dave. Churchill (the war), Wilson and Mrs Thatcher are exceptions. Since the present electoral system is tilted a long way in favour of the Labour Party it is imperative that Dave lead from the left of the party at least until he is elected. Then he can change the boundaries and do as he likes. As I fully suppose that he will. So trust him because there is no-one else to trust. You may well get an immigration policy and a Europhobe policy closer to what you want. Closer to Mr Hague's position indeed. But he does need to WIN first.

SUSAN HILL

December 5th, 2009 2:52pm Report this comment

Thanks Fergus, very enlightening. I take your points. Get elected first without frightening people off. and it will not be as easy, given the huge number of seats he would have to win. We shall see.

Beer Moth

December 5th, 2009 2:53pm Report this comment

Fergus P.

Heath as one of the more successful Tory leaders? Really?

Paul B

December 5th, 2009 3:46pm Report this comment

Beer Moth, Heath won a GE, that the point. So yes he was successful.

JohnAnt

December 5th, 2009 3:57pm Report this comment

Gaitskell, Callaghan, Heath, Major - electorally successful?
You're having a laugh, Fergus. Gaitskell decisively lost his only election in 1959; Callaghan was Wilson's unelected successor as PM of a minority government which subsequently lost further seats until he was turfed out by a landslide in 1979.
Heath was - through his own incalcitrant and egoistic behaviour (e.g. his stupid head-on clash with the unions and the Three-Day Week), one of the most unpopular PMs ever, and let in a disastrous Labour government in 1974.
Major won the 1992 election by default, because Kinnock lost it. He completely lost control of his cabinet and his party, and was buried in a landslide in 1997.
If they're you're moderate centrist successes, give me immoderate and untempered extremism every time.

Fergus Pickering

December 6th, 2009 5:16am Report this comment

Heath got himself elected though nobody thought he would. I wasn't talking about whether he was any good when he got there. Gaitskell didn't beat Macmillan. Nobody could have done. But a Labout party led by fatty Bevan would have gone down to quite spectacular defeat. Major, like Heath, was written off as a no-hoper in the election of 92. Do you suppose a Tebbit-led party would have done better? Similarly, pick your right-winger of choice and replace Dave with him. Do you suppose the Tories would enjoy a healthy lead under those circumstances. Mrs Thatcher beat Callaghan, but not by much. Everybody thought Jim had done very well, considering the dire straits his government were in (not all his fault actually). Then Mrs Thatcher beat Michael Foot. Well anybody could have done that. Then she beat Kinnock and - as most people admit. that wasn't hard. The person she FAILED to beat was Hesletine, from the left of the party, or at least to the left of her. Could she have beaten a Labour party led by Denis Healey? You can go back to before the war and consider the most successful Tory leader, honest Stan the people's man. Was he on the right of his party? Of course he was not. Churchill was a great man but he didn't win an election until 1950, and that was a bit of a fudge (he lost on the popular vote). What I am saying is so bleeding obvious it isn't true, but a lot of you are like Tony Benn, bleating away that Labour lost (whenever they did) because they weren't left enough.
Do you want to be pure or do you want to win? Lots of Labourites prefer the former, but I thought Tories were pragmatists. Are you? Or do you just like PLAYING at politics?

Paul B

December 7th, 2009 1:07pm Report this comment

Fergus, I salute you sir. 100pc agree.

Paul B

December 7th, 2009 1:11pm Report this comment

Also as a point of fact, Major in 92 won received more votes (14+million) than party prior or since have done. So yes it was narrow win in terms of seats, but not in terms of votes cast.

Post comment