The Spectator’s Notes | 22 October 2005

Does the failure of the Daily Mail to stop David Cameron’s leadership bid in its tracks mark a significant moment in the relationship between press and politics? Fear of the effect of ‘dirt’ on a leadership candidate is always very potent, and there has long been a belief among some Tories that the hostility of the Mail is fatal to a candidate’s chances of success (this despite the fact that the Mail promoted Michael Heseltine in the late 1980s and supported Ken Clarke not only this time but in 2001). So when the Mail decided to get agitated about whether David Cameron had taken drugs at university, and then started bawling the why-can’t-he-give-us-a-straight-answer routine, things looked black for the youngest entrant in the race. But his success this week proves that he has passed a key test, and is liberated as a result. One error that Cameron learnt from was that made by Michael Portillo when he tried to become Tory leader in 2001. By admitting his previous homosexual experiences, Portillo hoped to slough off the tabloid threats which had plagued him for years and get the credit for the ‘honesty’ for which the Mail always calls on these occasions. This did not happen. Those who had said they wanted honesty just called for more of it — Who? Whom? as Lenin asked in a rather different context. Those who found frankness on such matters unpleasant did not like the way the admission amounted to an unspoken demand for approval, when they would have preferred to offer quiet tolerance. Mr Portillo’s sexual identity became an issue which worried people, and limited his appeal. By not positively admitting drug use — though not indulging in dishonesty — Cameron left us the space to make up our own minds. If you support him, you don’t have to say, ‘Yes, I’m for druggie Dave,’ which would be difficult for some; you can simply say, ‘I respect Mr Cameron’s desire to protect some privacy.’