Thursday, October 06, 2005
Tories
Well I've watched the Tory leadership speeches. Liam Fox (mentioned
Blair 0 times, and Brown 0) suggested he might be alright and then was
crap, but no great wonder there. What was a wonder was that he mentioned
suggesting "recently that all schools in Britain should fly the Union flag as a
symbol of what unites us". It was to complain that people had said he was stupid
and perhaps racist. I was astonished that he wouldn't be trying to hide such a
stupid, stupid suggestion. Thank goodness someone who seems never to have heard
of the North of Ireland shan't be PM.... even if he meant Britain and not the
North by "Britain" (most mean the UK), then it would put the Unionists up in
arms rather than the Republicans. Can anyone imagine what it would be like if a
Tory government were telling Catholic schools there to put up the Union
flag?
Rifkind (Blair 3, Brown 4) should withdraw anyway; if he is a good idea then
Clarke is a better one (in terms of electoral success, I guess he would be
better at party unity, but a united opposition isn't really the point).
David Davis wasm as widely reported, pretty under-whelming. His style wasn't
awful, "statesmanlike" was a kind of decent suggestion of what he was going for,
with the opening about the terrorist attacks and all. He stated though, "prison
works. But too few criminals are in prison." That kind of right-wing trash isn't
exactly one-nation conservatism, and is a stupid sort of thing to be saying if
trying to convince that you can win PM. It lost it for me. (Blair 4; Brown
4)
Clarke's speech was rather splendidly arrogant. His ego seems as big as his
waistline, but it's an effective form of charisma. His speech was almost a chat,
in usual style, but one in which he managed to stat actually what could be a
killer argument for the next election: that government spending should go back
to his 40%, from the currently projected 42% of GDP. It's a big message,
relatively clear whilst complex, and along with the claim 'I did this and that
set up current economic prosperity', it's one that he could deliver with
credibility. The main theme of his speech didn't seem even this though, it
seemed to me that it was, 'we should win, if you want to win then pick me,
because I'd obviously do electorally best of anyone in this party. I'd say he's
right; though it's typically brash to say so in a speech. He also focused a hell
of a lot of attack on Gordon Brown, and put some of the 'it's the economy
stupid' message out there. He is clearly of the view that attacking Brown, who
should be PM by the next election, is the way for them to go. It's a testament
to Blair rather! He mentioned Brown 12 times, Blair only 3.
David Cameron, this new kid on the block (unfortunately not so cool as my
childhood heroes) delivered what I found a good performance as well; like many
of the other contenders, except for Ken Clarke, he offered some pretty detailed
policy proposals. Davis spent huge amounts of time on Home Office policy, Fox
spent time on health I think (sorry, mainly remember that he sucked, ah looking
at his speech there was actually a lot of compassionate foreign and community
policy stuff), and Cameron focused on education. They do really seem to have
been doing the homework that was advocated a while ago, of coming up with
detailed and clear policies that sound interesting ideas, and attack Labour.
IMHO, Davis spent far too much time on this though, whilst Cameron's pitches on
education were family-friendly enough in terms of allowing special schools, and
Tory enough in terms of making exams harder and putting people more often into
sets (mentioned how this helped the brightest, didn't mention the rest, hmm..
what's that reason the left likes comprehensives again? might it be that talk of
allowing the brightest to do well is all well and good except that it tends to
be to the neglect of people who could actually do with help and mightn't succeed
anyway?). He played on his youth and dynamism, strutting across the stage as he
made his pitch without notes, for about 23 minutes one of the longest as well.
He tried to look mature with thanks to the post-1997 leaders, whilst subtlely
emphasising that this class of people were to be thanked for doing that job of
leader of the opposition, implying a confidence that this wasn't the job he was
planning on, but rather that he was asking to be PM. That was v good
speechwriting I felt. He ranged across things decently, mentioning Africa like
many of them seem to have done to emphasise the old compassion point. I thought
he did well, and then he loved the applause, and got loads of it,
enthusiastically whenever he wanted it throughout the speech, and then for ages
at the end, without it looking tired. I reckon they loved him. He has the young
family and Tory wife as well I think; the latter joining him for some of the
post-speech applause and pictures, then leaving again whilst he carried on. I
think a big problem with him though is that he is and looks like a Tory boy. He
was at Brasenose I think, and though I've not found details of a Union or OUCA
career; he gives the impression, the bouffant wavy hair, that certain fullness
of skin that makes it obvious one had been well-fed for a very long time, and
which gives a rounded, smug chin, rather than a strong one e.g. Blair's is
relatively non-pudgey. Certainly they loved him, and he could win leader, but if
they've sense then they should go for Clarke with him and Osborne prominent.
Osborne's (Blair 2, Brown 5) speech wasn't half bad actually, though as he said,
like Charlie Kennedy, he's not trying to lead his party. (Blair 2, Brown 6; more
towards the Clarke strategy than any of the other leadership contenders).
So there looks to be a team there ready, Clarke leading a personal attack on
Brown, his successor who used his spending plans for two years, and who probably
no one else is as well-placed to attack, whilst Osborne and Cameron, who seem to
share his strategy of forgetting Blair as someone they never managed to beat in
the country (it's hard from the right; note where the Lib Dems have gone), and
going after Brown, who is now the real enemy. Beginning the attack now means
that it should be well underway when he gets coronated, and it's sensible
politics. As Heseltine pointed out; they needn't hope only for a victory next
time, as a hung parliament might well see a breakdown and fresh elections after
2 years. So how's this? Clarke leads, with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor, and
Cameron as Deputy leader or major Shadow Cabinet, and used disproportionately
much. If the next Parliament is hung, then the ageing Clarke gets replaced by
Cameron for an early election, and takes them back to power...
It's scary isn't it?
