Defending Cameron... Actually, maybe not

You can't seem to move these days for blogs criticising Cameron, so it is quite interesting to come across one that defends him. Anyone who has paid even a cursory visit to this blog knows that I am not a fan of David "Hug A Husky" Cameron, so I found it very interesting to read Tim J's defence of David over at the wonderfully named Conservative Party Reptile (love the initials... CPR...). Needless to say, I really don't agree but since Tim J offers a calm, lucid case for Cameron I will try to offer a calm, lucid case against him. Rather than my usual sweary tantrum throwing.

It is interesting to see the picture that Tim J puts on his post - David Cameron with a tiny puppy. Now this is a very obvious image, and almost begging criticism. Yes, the new caring, sharing Conservative Party likes puppies. Cameron is showing us that he is more than capable of doing the baby kissing side to modern politics. But the problem is that there is no end to the media friendly images, but a real lack of any policies, and the few policies that do emerge seem to appeal solely to the readers of The Guardian. Sure, the Tory Party needs to branch out and win votes from the centre ground and the left, but not at the expense of losing core right of centre voters. Because, as I am living proof, they will leave the party. And if UKIP can actually make itself something other than a single issue party, then there is a natural home waiting for us.

Tim J begins his post by explaining that he is "getting a wee bit tired of the animus being generated from various parts of the blogosphere." He quotes Richard North's post at EU Referendum as "a bit alarming." Now I like North's post - in fact it sums up the way I feel very well. But that is more a puerile, nasty streak in me. And Tim J goes on to further criticise the attitude of those who are attacking Cameron:

"But this sort of comment, whether it's the club-room harrumphing of Simon Heffer or the more 'howling at the moon' effort above, almost invariably combined with lofty patronising of Cameron's age, or disdainfully arranged quotation marks around "Dave"is getting reminiscent of the Bennite raging against the tyrannies of New Labour."

Well, some of the more childish criticisms of Cameron (my own included) are based on purely cosmetic concerns - such as his relative youth, his attempts to be Dave rather than David and his rather portly appearance - and maybe that does cheapen our arguments. But there are some great arguments in amongst all the rage against Cameron. And maybe those moving against Cameron do resemble the Bennite opposition to Blair, but I would argue Benn (senior) is far more in line with what the Labour Party should be, just as those arguing against Cameron have a better idea of what the Conservative Party stands for than the leader of that party.

There are 3 key points to Tim's argument:

"1. David Cameron's strategy is extremely clear."

Yes, there isn't one.

"He intends, by projecting an image of Conservatism that is avowedly 'moderate', to gain rights of audience and, if possible, the benefit of the doubt for the policies that are to come."

Oh, the Blairite approach - hoping that if you appear inoffensive then people will not worry about any policies that you eventually come up with. But as Blair proves, the danger with this approach is you forget to come up with any policies.

"The underlying instincts of the Conservative front bench remain broadly the same as they have been for years: pro-market, Atlanticist and Euro-sceptic. Hague, Osborne, Gove and the like are not sopping wet liberals, and it is unrealistic to pretend to believe that they are. What they are is pragmatists, just has the Conservative party has always been, in victory at any rate."

It is difficult to know what Cameron and his posse stand for, other than lurching towards the centre ground. They do seem quite keen, with their embracing of all things green and their new love of Toynbee, to appear as "sopping wet liberals." Whether or not a party should be pragmatic in power is open to debate. However, to be so pragmatic as to gut the party like a fish before acheiving power is not open to question. Stand up for something, and compromise - if you have to - in power. But don't sell your soul whilst you are on the outside looking in.

"Cameron is seeking to avoid the instant Mandy Rice Davies response that has greeted every Conservative policy since 1992, when John Major, William Hague or Iain Duncan Smith stated that the aim of policy X was to help the poor, or to try to salve the hurts ofsocietyy, all they got was a curled lip and a 'they would say that wouldn't they'. If Cameron can manage it so that the policy is listened to before being dismissed he will have made real progress."

He might have to come up with some policies first - rather than getting his minions to talk about the relative imagery of Churchill and Toynbee. And he should come up with policies to "salve the hurts ofsocietyy" (sic), but also with other policies to address other issues facing the UK today.

2. He has brought a sense of professionalism to the party. There is little in politics so damaging as a sense of squabbling. The Conservative party gave up on being an organisation in the proper sense of the word in about 1994. For ten years there was absolutely no sense of unity, of purpose or of direction about the rump at Westminster. Since Michael Howard re-introduced a sense of discipline, Cameron has been able to take his party with him. Even the rumblings from Norman Tebbit have been both good-natured and self-aware, Tebbit being aware that dissent from him was actually rather good news for the Tories' public image.

Tim, your post is in response to squabbling within the party. Howard's coronation as Tory leader ending squabbling in the party for the 2005 election, and Howard came across - in spite of all his failings - as tough manager of the party. Howard did what Major and Duncan-Smith failed to do, and what Hague was scared to do - he united the party. Cameron's lurch to the left is dividing the party again.

And finally, Number 3:

"Despite the readiness of many right-wing commentators to play this down, or even to deny it, when David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party enjoyed a lead in the polls of about 5-6%. In a year he has turned this into a consistent Conservative lead of about 4-7%."

No, the polls say Cameron has done well, and I acknowledge this. My birthday this year fell on the date of the local elections, and in spite of my highly inebriated state, I watched the results come in and felt a surge of optimism that things - in spite of Cameron's failure to be at all Conservative - might change at the next General Election. Since then things have changed and I doubt Cameron is a Conservative - so my basic point is this - are the polls for Cameron's Conservative Lite, or against Labour? Because the anti-Labour vote in 2005 meant Howard made some ground in 2005, and I feel that any Tory leader in May of this year would have done very well, what with the problems of Prescott, Clarke and Hewitt.

For those who complain that this is nothingcomparedd to the stratospheric Labour leads of the 90s, Mike Smithson has voiced considerable reserve against the validity of comparing polls now with those twenty years ago.

Sorry, being pedantic, but that would be 10 to 15 years ago, rather than twenty. And Blair won a landslide in the 1997 election - because of his lead in the polls. Cameron's lead gives him a small majority at best.

"The Conservatives have won elections most consistently with a moderate, optimistic leader."
And lost them with a moderate leader - Churchill in 1945, Douglas-Home in 1964, Heath in 1974, Major in 1992. I will concede the optimistic point though - in 1945, Churchill had been in power during a brutal war. In 1964, Douglas-Home was the fourth Tory PM, after Churchill, Eden and Macmillan. Heath was just terrible. And in 1997 Major was trying to defend just under 18 years of Tory rule.

"There is a hint in the criticisms of Cameron of a Goldwater Republicanism (or even a Footite Labourism): better ideological purity in opposition that the messy compromises and hypocrisy of government."

No, I just don't think there is no point in achieving power if you are a gutted, hollow shell of a party that has nothing to say or do in power.

"I bang on about post-modern narrative creation far too much, but that is precisely what Cameron is doing at the moment: creating a framework upon which to hang future policies."

Or accidentally/intentionally positioning the party so it is so far left of centre that it cannot be a Tory party in government.

I am half tempted to join UKIP, and half tempted to turn The Appalling Strangeness into a forum for those who think Cameron is a waste of space - and it is worth deposing him even if it means losing the next election. I would rather have a real Tory party in opposition with a chance of achieving power that a poor Tory copy of Nu Labour in power under Cameron.