Team Cameron

The new face of the Tory Party? David Cameron’s biggest headache might

well be the Class of 2010
David Vaiani

29/1/10

When David Cameron opened up the process for selecting Tory Members of Parliament and invited people who had never before considered going into politics, his intention was to change the image of the party in order to make it more broadly acceptable to the electorate. By convincing more ordinary people to become Tory MPs, Cameron may well achieve that aim, but he may also find that he ends up getting more than he initially bargained for. I have written before about the need to change the political process and to make it less of a profession, and more of a vocation. Indeed, I am the first to admit that I find
the archetypal professional politician distasteful, but the reality is that, whether we like it or not, politics is a serious job and it requires people who are unconditionally committed to the cause of
politics. At a time when few people were able to vote and the political process was restricted to a tiny social elite, it may have been acceptable for MPs to be dilettante part-timers who could retire
to their country estates after a few hours of idle debate in the Commons chamber. But in an age of fully-fledged democracy and 24-hour news, we need politicians who can cope with the twin pressures of
being accountable to their electorate, whilst at the same time being capable of facing an intrusive and often hostile media.

In order to succeed you need to be able to demonstrate three key characteristics. Firstly, you need to be fully committed to the philosophical underpinnings of your chosen political orientation. Secondly, you need to be tribal. Not in the sense that you must be slavishly devoted to the party line, but in the sense that you must have a profound understanding of the political tribe to which you belong. The Tory Party (like every other political party) has certain customs and rituals. It moves to a certain rhythm and it responds to a particular set of unspoken rules. Thirdly, you need to be committed to the political process, by which I mean some of the rather dull and unglamorous work that is the lot of most ordinary backbench MPs. In modern times, the men and women who have become successful politicians
have, by and large, combined all of the above characteristics. When I look at some of the members of the Tory Class of 2010, I worry that there are a number of candidates who have entered the political fray
for entirely the wrong reasons. Indeed, I get the impression that they have almost fallen into it by chance. Many responded to Cameron’s call for people with no prior political experience to come forward. This may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but I worry that many of
these candidates will fall by the wayside in the not too distant future.

Take three high profile examples: Zac Goldmsith, Rory Stewart, and Sarah Wollaston. I do not doubt that all three are perfectly decent and worthy individuals, but I predict that they will all either lack
the stamina to stay the course, or will get bored of the political process very quickly. Why do I say this? Firstly, all three are, to all intents and purposes, single-issue candidates. Goldsmith is an
environmentalist. Stewart is a foreign policy expert. Wollaston’s political interests do not appear to stray far beyond the NHS. All three areas are, of course, very important, but MPs need to have a broad understanding of a wide range of political issues if they are to have any genuine credibility. Secondly, none of the above has any understanding or feeling for the particularities of the Tory Party
specifically, or the party political process more generally. They will need to learn the rules of the game pretty quickly or they will not get very far. Thirdly, given that none of them have any serious
experience of the political process, they will probably grow tired of the many dull and unpleasant aspects of politics: the minor constituency work, the endless round of glad-handing events, the
frivolous political gossiping, the vicious and petty backstabbing. MPs who are not immersed in the political game, soon find the whole business rather tiresome and somewhat beneath them. I suspect that the likes of Goldsmith, Stewart, and Wollaston (among others) will fall prey to some, or perhaps all, of these realities.

On that point, I also suspect that these candidates have a rather rose-tinted view of politics. They probably believe that politics consists primarily of making important speeches and enacting momentous
policies. The reality is that almost all of politics is made up of petty personality battles, unglamorous committee work, endless constituency drudgery, and relentless intrusions into your private life. When things go badly, you invariably get the blame. When they go well, do not expect to get the credit. Thinking about the nature of politics, I am reminded of what the American golfer Jeff Sluman once
said about his own profession: “I hate the game of golf. But I can’t wait to play it again tomorrow”. Much of the same could be said about the game of politics. I fear that David Cameron will come to regret the day when he decided to open up the selection process.

Are the Tories a one-man band?

David Vaiani 8/01/10

Shortly after the 1997 landslide, Tony Benn commented that New Labour was the smallest political party in history. What he meant was that although the party had once been run by a broad coalition of MPs, party officials and trade union representatives, New Labour was merely the creation and personal plaything of Tony Blair and his closest associates. Can the same be said of the Tories under David Cameron? The simple answer to that question is yes.

There can be little doubt that the Tory party is dominated by Cameron and an inner circle of trusted acolytes; including George Osborne, William Hague, Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin, Andy Coulson, and Steve Hilton. The net result is that the majority of MPs, party officials, and even some shadow cabinet members have been left in the cold. Not surprisingly, this has caused a certain amount of resentment. In the weekend papers, an un-named Tory frontbencher was quoted as saying about Steve Hilton: “Does he think we sit on our hands waiting to read emails from a 10-year who has just discovered Conservatism, on a £200,000 salary, in his farmhouse with a wife who works for Google? It’s c**p”. Although this may not be entirely fair on a man who has worked for the party since the early 90s, the point is that there is a feeling among Tory party members that the dividing line between the in and out crowd is somewhat too distinctly drawn.

But the real question is whether any of this actually matters. The Tory leadership certainly does not appear to be unduly concerned that relying on one man constitutes an inherent weakness. Quite the opposite, in fact. The newly unveiled Tory election poster featuring a prominent picture of David Cameron and precious little else not only evoked memories of the same strategy employed by Blair and New Labour over a decade ago, but also demonstrated that the Tories believe Cameron to be the party’s strongest electoral asset. As Blair proved, this strategy will suffice to win a general election, but at some point it will become necessary to build an effective team capable of running a series of government departments. Indeed, Blair himself towards the end of his term in office was often heard complaining about the paucity of talent on the Labour backbenches from which he was able to pick his ministers. Margaret Thatcher faced a slightly different problem. As she reached the end, she increasingly tended to surround herself with a small group of trusted advisers, at the expense of other more senior colleagues. Following the departure of Willie Whitelaw and the assassination of Ian Gow, two vital links between the leadership and the Tory backbenches disappeared virtually over night. Thatcher was suddenly left isolated. David Cameron may come to experience a similar set of dilemmas. Only time will tell. That is why it is important to build a strong and broad team and to involve as many capable people as possible in the decision making process. Politics at the top is a lonely occupation. It is wise, therefore, to surround yourself with as many allies as possible.

Why Labour attacks on Tory toffs will backfire

David Vaiani

09/12/09

It appears that the issue of class is rearing its ugly head once
again. Labour just can’t leave the wretched subject alone. They refuse
to learn the lessons of their shambolic defeat in the Crewe & Nantwich
by-election. As Tallyrand famously said of the restored Bourbon kings:
“They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing”. Although it is true
to say that the social make-up of David Cameron and the majority of
his frontbench team is a significant thorn in the side for the Tories,
abusing the Leader of the Opposition during PMQs for his Etonian
schooling is not only unedifying, but it is also counterproductive
from the Prime Minister’s point of view.

Gordon Brown does not need to remind people of the fact that his rival
for Number 10 is a top hat wearing, Old Etonian, member of the
Bullingdon. They know that already. But by hammering away at the point
in the way that he did during PMQs recently the Prime Minister only
serves to make himself look chippy and small-minded. Many people will,
no doubt, allow these ugly prejudices to sway their voting intentions,
but they expect a more sober and measured approach from their Prime
Minister. Having said that, as far as David Cameron is concerned, the
‘c’ word is undoubtedly a problem for the Tories. The acute sense of
discomfiture with which the Tory Leader tries to pretend (in much the
same way that Tony Blair did) that he is just an ordinary person is
palpable. But in my view he needs to stop apologising for his
background. He is not fooling anyone and, ultimately, he cannot change
the fact of where he went to school. He should instead ignore this
rather tiresome issue altogether by stressing the point that it does
not matter from whence you came, but only where you are hoping to go.

Should the Tories worry about the latest MORI poll?

David Vaiani (25/11/09)

There has been considerable excitement across the blogosphere about this weekend’s Ipsos MORI poll showing the Tory lead over the government down to a mere 6 points. As everybody knows, the Tories need at least a 10 point advantage over New Labour come polling day, if they are to secure a majority of just one. They require an even bigger gap in order to establish a working majority of around 30. As a result of this latest poll, there is much talk of a hung parliament, and according to New Labour’s cheerleader-in-chief James McIntyre we might even be in for a surprise Labour victory. I doubt that the MORI poll was greeted with much enthusiasm at CCHQ, but nor do I think that there is much cause for the Tories to panic. I suspect that David Cameron also understands this. Even when the Tories were enjoying comfortable double digit leads over New Labour, David Cameron was warning his Party that the election was not yet a foregone conclusion.

At every meeting and public gathering, the Tory Leader has been anxiously guarding against complacency. He knows that he has not yet sealed the deal with the electorate. Although he has managed to detoxify the Tory brand (for which he must be congratulated), there are still too many people who remain unconvinced about both the leader and his party. In a nutshell, the doubters worry whether David Cameron has what it takes to be Prime Minister. They see a country facing economic meltdown and when they look at Cameron, many see nothing more than a slick Old Etonian PR man. This is not Cameron’s fault. He should not be ashamed of his background, but nor should he be expected to change his spots. As for the party, many are willing to give David Cameron the benefit of the doubt, but they worry that the backbenches behind the leader remain rather more resistant to any meaningful change. If you read the comments section on ConservativeHome, you might think that the narrowing of Cameron’s poll lead is solely down to his supposed U-turn over the EU referendum. For my own part, I don’t buy into this argument. The reality is that the Tory leader had no choice over the Lisbon Treaty. As he argued, it would have been entirely futile to hold a referendum post ratification. Moreover, most people are intelligent enough to understand that it was Labour that reneged on its promise to hold a referendum.

If I were advising David Cameron I would tell him to ignore the polls and to focus instead on attacking Labour’s woeful record in government. He cannot do very much about the aforementioned public perception regarding his background and his party’s ideological make-up. In any case, there almost certainly isn’t enough time to reverse the perception between now and polling day. Moreover, he must remember that, historically, Tory governments have not been swept into office on a wave of popular enthusiasm. That is because, unlike our socialist opponents, we do not promise to refashion the entire universe along utopian lines. We only promise what is sensible and achievable, as we believe in the art of the possible, rather than utopian fantasies. The Tory Leader should also know that his great achievement to date has been to detoxify the Tory brand to the extent that people are, at last, taking the Tories seriously. Thanks to Cameron, they are also now willing to listen to what we have to say. He should take advantage of this happy state of affairs by focusing all his energies on exposing the government’s record, whilst putting forward a positive and constructive programme for a Tory Britain. Beyond that he can simply sit back and allow Gordon Brown and his rabble to tear themselves apart between now and the election.

The Tories and l’affaire Truss

David Vaiani (16/11/09)

The peaceful and sleepy market town of Swaffham in South West Norfolk appears, on the face of it, to be an unlikely location for a full-scale political rebellion. But last night the members of the local Tory association met in an emergency session to vote on whether their prospective parliamentary candidate, Liz Truss, should be deselected. Prior to the meeting David Cameron indicated in the strongest possible terms that he was opposed to Miss Truss’s deselection. If the members had voted to deselect Miss Truss, Cameron would have been under severe pressure to tear up the rulebook for choosing Conservative parliamentary candidates. Indeed, some even described this as the Tory leader’s ‘Clause IV moment’.

In the end, despite a few dissenting voices, common sense prevailed and Miss Truss received the overwhelming support of her association. So what was all the fuss about? Her traditionalist opponents — branded the “Turnip Taleban” — were furious that she failed to disclose an affair with Mark Field, a married Tory MP, when she was chosen to contest the seat less than a month ago. To some this may seem like trivial grounds for deselecting an otherwise exemplary candidate, but the Tory grassroots in Norfolk (and elsewhere) were angry and they had every intention of ensuring that their voices should be heard. As usual, the press tried to portray this row as a fight to the death between modernists and traditionalists within the Party; or between the sexy trendies and the old sexists. Although there is an element of truth in that charge, it only tells half the story.

In reality, the situation is more finely nuanced than that. When David Cameron became Tory leader he wasted no time in outlining his plans for modernising the Party. He wanted the Party to look and sound more like modern Britain. To that end, members were told that the leadership would actively intervene in future to ensure that more women and ethnic minority candidates would get selected in winnable parliamentary seats. True to his word, David Cameron introduced the so-called A-List of priority candidates and a decree that final shortlists for parliamentary seats would, in future, be required to have a 50/50 split between male and female candidates. More recently he announced his controversial decision to have All Women Shortlists for by-elections in winnable seats after January of next year. So for all his talk of ‘localism’ and of handing power back to local communities, David Cameron has done the exact opposite in regards to his own Party: he has centralised power like no other Party leader before him.  Not surprisingly, this has not gone unnoticed. Many Tory activists (in particular in rural areas) have looked on with a sense of growing dismay at the brutal manner in which the Party has been taken over by a powerful, metropolitan elite. Instinctively independent and suspicious of any form of centralisation, many Tories feel that David Cameron has gone too far in his desire to intervene in the parliamentary selection process. Indeed, most feel that candidate selection should rest with the associations, with only a minimum amount of input and guidance coming from central office. The

traditionalists argue that it hasn’t always been like this. In days gone by, the process revolved around a field of 20 shortlisted candidates, whittled down to three or four over a period of weeks, encompassing several interviews. The idea behind this process was to provide local parties with ample opportunity to get to know all the potential candidates, as well as allowing would-be candidates to establish whether they had managed to build a rapport with the association. Today, by contrast, CCHQ permits only six candidates from a likely field of about 200 in a “safe” seat to be shortlisted for the nomination. The entire process is, to all intents and purposes, stage managed directly from CCHQ. The net effect is to seriously restrict the degree of autonomy and choice available to local associations when it comes to selecting their candidates. In the end, after the result of the vote was announced, the Party leadership let out a collective sigh of relief as the Tory burghers of Swaffham voted with their heads, rather than with their hearts. Because they are sensible and prudent creatures, they realise that the Party is on the verge of seizing power at the next General Election, and they understand that any show of disunity would be unhelpful, to put it mildly. However, a warning short has been fired across the bows of CCHQ. The leadership should tread carefully in future, if it wishes to retain the broad support of the Party in the country.

Boris being Boris

David Vaiani (16/11/09)

Just when you thought he’d learned his lesson, Boris does it again by putting his size 10 foot right back into it. Not content with ruffling
a few feathers at the last Tory Party Conference with his call for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the Mayor of London has, once again,
managed to irritate CCHQ, by attacking Chris Grayling over his comments that certain parts of London resemble the mean streets of
Baltimore, as depicted on the hit TV series, the Wire.

This is what  Boris had to say: “Someone the other day compared London with Baltimore, absolute nonsense. You know, this programme, The Wire in Baltimore.” He went on to say that “there are 35 murders per 100,000 in Baltimore, there are approximately three murders per 100,000 in London. It is far, far more dangerous in Baltimore than it is in London, especially for gun crime.” Of course, this is not unchartered territory for Boris. He has done this sort of thing before. Indeed, he is something of a veteran when it comes to sniping at the Tory leadership. It was only a few months ago that he openly criticised David Cameron’s ‘Broken Britain’ line in one of his regular Telegraph columns. He has also had at least one dig at Cameron’s stance on grammar schools.

So what is Boris up to? In order to understand who Boris is and what he is trying to do, it is important to look beyond the bumbling, Bertie Wooster façade. Boris is a hugely intelligent man who got into Eton on the back of a scholarship and then went on to gain a First in Classics at Balliol. In short, he is nobody’s fool. He is also a very ambitious man. At Oxford, he became Union President and edited one of the student newspapers. Even then, contemporaries marked him out for future greatness.

So Boris has always had a very good idea of what he wants to achieve, and there can be no doubt that he sees himself as a potential candidate for Number 10. Nor should he be dismissed out of hand. Many thought that the idea of him as Mayor of London was little more than a preposterous joke, but Boris proved the doubters wrong by thrashing Ken Livingstone at last year’s election. David Cameron is certainly intelligent enough to understand this. As an almost exact contemporary of his at Eton and Oxford, he has known Boris long enough to have a sound grasp of the man’s strengths and weaknesses. As a result, Cameron undoubtedly views Boris as one of his
main rivals, even if this may strike some as entirely ridiculous.

That is one of the reasons why he did not give Boris a frontbench position when he became leader. Moreover, Cameron knows that Boris is using London as a base from which to launch his leadership bid, and he also knows that Boris will have no difficulty in securing a safe seat, once he stands down from City Hall. Although Boris has his fair share of enemies among the Tory back benches (many don’t see him as a team player), Cameron knows how popular he is among the party’s grassroots and he understands that if he should ever slip up, Boris will be waiting in the wings to take over.

So it is against this background that Boris’s recent comments against Chris Grayling need to be viewed. He is trying, among other things, to stake out a distinctive position for himself within the party and he wants to make sure that – whether it is on Europe, education, or crime – there is clear blue water between himself and David Cameron. So far, he is doing a very good job on that front. I, for one, would not discount a Boris vs Dave showdown for the leadership at some stage in the not too distant future. Whoever wins this battle, the next decade should certainly make for entertaining viewing.

Selecting candidates: Tories must look beyond gender

David Vaiani (10/11/09)

I apologise for revisiting this issue, but the Tories’ approach to selecting parliamentary candidates is very important. The composition of the House of Commons is at the very heart of our democratic system, because the quality of our legislators has a direct impact on how well
our country is governed. It is for that reason that I am opposed to the Tories’ stated aim of getting more women into Parliament through the mechanism of All Women Shortlists. As I have argued before, such a system should have no place in a democratic society, in which we all expect to be judged on our merits alone. Since my last blog on this issue, David Cameron appears to have dropped the policy.

Nevertheless, there is a broader point to be made about the Tories’ policy on selecting candidates, and it is that it is far too narrow in its focus. Sure, getting more women into Parliament is important, but only if we want to see a House of Commons that is, merely, statistically and superficially more representative of the nation as a whole. In other words, my concern is that we are being rather short-sighted in concentrating exclusively on gender. This is particularly true when we take a step back and look at the broader social, economic, and professional backgrounds of some of our candidates. It is pointless, in my view, to obsess about quotas for women, if the women in question all have wearily familiar backgrounds. Put differently, what is the point of selecting a woman, simply because she happens to be a woman, if that woman also happens to be a white, privately educated, Oxbridge, professional? Will the working class woman living on a council estate in Dudley really be able to identify herself with this candidate? It strikes me as rather unlikely. Moreover, how exactly are her views or experiences of life any more representative of the nation as a whole than those of that much derided figure; the white, male, privately educated Oxbridge professional? I’m afraid to say that when I look at some of the female candidates being selected, I don’t really see how they are in any way more representative of the nation than some of the men who are, effectively, being excluded from the selection process.

What the Tories should be focusing on instead is to select more people with different opinions and experiences of life. Rather than focusing on gender, CCHQ should be asking the following questions: Where are the working class Tory candidates? Where are the candidates with experience of the public or voluntary sectors? Where are the Tory hopefuls who did not go to university, but decided instead to leave school in order to start their own business or to pursue an apprenticeship? When we talk about diversity, it is this kind of diversity we should be talking about, not the crude, reductionist emphasis on gender. It should not be necessary for me to spell this out, but what really matters in regards to the composition of the House of Commons is the plurality of opinions, and the diversity of social, economic, and professional backgrounds among the members. That is what people mean, I suspect, when they say that Parliament does not represent them. They look at the House of Commons with a sense of dismay, for they see a group of, mostly, middle class, privately educated, Oxbridge City types with little or no experience of the real world. In that broader context, gender is little more than an irrelevant side issue.

Tory splits over Europe? In fact, the party has never been more united
over Europe.

David Vaiani (08/11/09)

David Cameron performs an uncomfortable U-turn. David Davis writes an
article that goes against party policy. Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer
resign from their frontbench posts. Suddenly, all hell breaks loose,
as the media claim that the Tories are, once again, split straight
down the middle over the issue of Europe. It’s a good story, but the
reality is that nothing could be further from the truth.

A little historical perspective is required. During the post-war
period, the Tory Party was the party of Europe, whilst Labour was
staunchly opposed to the European project. Over the years, the Tory
Party became increasingly eurosceptic, and today’s parliamentary party
is the most eurosceptic in the party’s history. The Tories destroyed
themselves over Europe during the early 90s because party members were
suspicious of a powerful group of ageing pro-Europeans around the
leadership. They may have constituted a minority, but they were
perceived as wielding significant influence. Today, the Hurds,
Heseltines, and Pattens, have retired to the red benches of the Lords
or to write books. Although Kenneth Clarke is in the shadow cabinet,
he has finally given up the ghost, by conceding that the party’s
policy on Europe is settled. Consequently, there is no split over
Europe, because the majority of party members know that Cameron,
Hague, and Osborne are convinced eurosceptics, and they believe that,
once in government, these men will pursue a tough policy on Europe.

The truth is that the ‘Tory splits over Europe’ story is little more
than a diversion. The same is true, incidentally, of the wholly
fabricated storm in a teacup over the Tories’ links to the allegedly
anti-Semitic Polish MEP, Michael Kaminski. The real story is, or
should be, what the Lisbon Treaty means for democracy in the United
Kingdom. Why does the Lisbon Treaty matter so much? It is worth
reminding ourselves. Firstly, the document creates a head of state for
the European Union, in the shape of the presidency. Secondly, the
treaty puts in place a foreign policy, complete with a foreign
minister, a diplomatic corps and accredited embassies. Thirdly, a
system of criminal justice, including a European Public Prosecutor and
a police force is established. Fourthly, the treaty provides the union
with the “legal personality” of an independent government, which
confers treaty-making powers and the right to sit in international
associations. In addition the treaty enshrines the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, and introduces the abolition of some 40 national
vetoes, new powers for the European Parliament and a 30 per cent
reduction in Britain’s ability to block new initiatives. It is a sad
reflection of our democracy today that these issues of substance are
relegated to the back pages, whereas fictitious nonsense about alleged
anti-Semitism and ‘Tory splits over Europe’ continues to dominate the
headlines.

The fair trade and fair-weather Tories

David Vaiani 28/10/09

Watch out you denizens of Whitehall! There’s a new kid on the block! The Tories are back in town, but not as we all know them. The blue rinses have been quietly wheeled into a corner, and the crusty colonels have been sidelined.

Tory Boys with their thick glasses, spotty complexions and ill-fitting, M&S pinstripes are a thing of the past. There isn’t a single Pringle golf sweater in sight. Judging by the recent Tory Conference, the average age of the movers and shakers in blue has also plummeted.

The New Tories are all called names like Johnny, Dominic, and Cosmo. Or, if they happen to be girls, they will be called Flora, Honey, or biscuit. Yes, really. They are also considerably more attractive and trendy than their geeky and gauche predecessors. The accents are no longer grammar school faux posh, but of the real cut glass variety. There are pink shirts and chinos from Boden as far as the eye can see.

As you watch them sipping their frappuccinos and casually twirling their pashminas, deciding whether to spend the summer months in Umbria or Cornwall, you are reminded of the fact that a great cultural shift is set to take place at the heart of power in this country. Suddenly it is acceptable to be posh. There is no longer any need to apologise for wearing Burberry and brogues in public.

The new Tories are out, they’re posh, and they’re proud to tell the rest of the world. I should declare an interest at this stage. Many of these people are my friends and I am very fond of them. But I do worry that some of them are not totally committed to the Tory cause. I sense that they could just as easily be New Labour types, but they are not stupid, and they sense the direction in which the wind is blowing. I can remember pounding the streets and delivering leaflets during the dog days of IDS’s period at the helm of the party, but I don’t recall seeing any of these sloany types joining me in the fight.

So, are these New Tories, with their fair trade coffee, the real deal, or can we expect them to be fair-weather friends?

Only time will tell, I suppose.

Short listed or Short changed?

David Vaiani (27/10/09)

Something is rotten in the state of David Cameron’s Tory Party. Although the majority of commentators believe that the Tories are on course to win the next General Election, it is clear that all is not well within the party. Despite enjoying a healthy lead over Labour, there is a distinct sense of unease among the party’s grassroots supporters. It would be an exaggeration to say that activists are feeling mutinous towards the leadership, but there is no question that there is a growing feeling that the Tory High Command is taking the party in the country for granted. The issue that is threatening to fan the flames of dissent is one that has surfaced from time to time within the party over the past few years: All Women Shortlists.

According to a recent ConservativeHome poll of 1,900 Tory members 87% disagreed with the notion that ‘all women shortlists are a justifiable emergency measure for the selection of candidates in some seats from January 2010 until the General Election’. Moreover, 79% agreed with the suggestion that ‘local party members are better placed to select their candidate than CCHQ’. More worrying still for the party leadership is the figure of 97% of members who disagree with the idea that ‘the number of female Tory candidates is a big issue on the doorsteps of ordinary voters’. So, given the strength of feeling on this issue, why are Tory activists not in open revolt against the leadership? Put simply, because the party looks set to win the next General Election and nobody is willing to rock the boat.

Nevertheless, the ConservativeHome poll clearly demonstrates that the majority of party members do not agree with the party line on All Women Shortlists. Labour and the Lib Dems will undoubtedly seek to turn this into a story about the Tories’ supposedly sexist and antediluvian attitudes towards women. They will try to suggest that whilst David Cameron may have provided the party with a veneer of respectability, the party members behind him have remained stuck in their old ways. The reality, however, is quite different. Whilst there may still exist some vestiges of sexism within the party, the truth is that the vast majority of members are only concerned about selecting the best possible candidates to fight the next election. In short, for most members, the gender of a candidate is (or should be) entirely irrelevant.

My own view is that resorting to quotas and positive discrimination is un-conservative, in that such measures are fundamentally at odds with the conservative ideal of creating a society based on merit alone. Also, whilst I don’t object to the idea that there should be more women in Parliament, I do not believe that aiming for a form of gender equality among our representatives should be a priority. What is of far greater concern is to ensure that we have a broader representation of different opinions and experiences in Parliament. That, in my view, is what most people mean when they say that Parliament is not representative of the public. My third objection to all women shortlists stems from a profound dislike of categorizing people according to their gender (and, for that matter, according to class, age, or race). The idea that we are primarily defined by our gender, race, or sexuality is crude and outdated. As individuals we should be judged not by who or what we are, but by what we say and do. In other words, we should be judged solely by our words and deeds, not by our gender or the colour of our skin. Moreover, I resent the idea that only a woman can properly represent other women in Parliament, or that only a black MP will be able to understand the hopes and concerns of black voters. As a white, middle class male, I do not feel that I have to be represented by a white middle class male. What matters to me is whether my MP’s views are in line with my own and whether they will be able to represent me properly in Parliament. Indeed, in my own patch I voted for a very talented and able woman at our parliamentary selection meeting. What mattered to me were her views on policy. I was not even remotely concerned about her gender, because I viewed it as completely irrelevant to her ability to be a good MP.

Having said all of that, I should add that I do not necessarily object to the idea of getting more women into Parliament, provided that they are the best candidates available. But I believe that there are other ways in which one could increase the number of women in Parliament. For instance, parliamentary selection panels could – much like jury panels – be made of an equal number of men and women, in order to ensure a more balanced decision-making process. Another option would be to have less ‘macho style’ selection meetings. At present, the emphasis on making big set-piece speeches often favours the male candidates. On the other hand, the ability to influence legislation, work in committee and connect to constituents is entirely absent from the final stages of the assessment. These skills arguably require more of a feminine touch. Working them into the selection process could help to provide greater balance. A further idea would be to have fully fledged open primaries, such as the Totnes selection meeting which produced a female doctor as the Tory candidate. There are, of course, many other measures, but the point is that there is no need to resort to crude quotas and positive discrimination.

As for how this story is likely to unfold over the next few months, I am inclined to say that the decision to impose All Women Shortlists will go through without any serious opposition. Many party members are deeply troubled by what they view as Blair-style gimmickry. They feel that on the question of All Women Shortlists, the leadership is far too concerned with style, as opposed to substance. But I doubt that there will be a serious rebellion. The party is aware that it has a fantastic chance to win the next election, and my hunch is that activists won’t do anything to put that at risk. The Tories may be ‘the stupid party’, as J.S. Mill once put it, but they’re not that stupid either.

Mr Spin and Mrs Middle Class: Tory Politics

Jenny Riddell

It’s always been a mystery to me how there are people out there who look identical to their pets.  And then, there are the other spooky contenders who suit their name so perfectly it almost makes me believe in fate.   Let’s consider David “Camera-On” in the later camp. Whether it’s his new ‘man of the people and rolled up sleeves’ image, or his caught-on-camera personal fitness regime proving he can pump iron with the best of them, Mr Camera-On is the perfect embodiment of  21^st century spin: Script, makeup and perfect camera angles win votes.

A recent note from the deputy political editor of the Times revealed that Andrew Parsons, a former staff photographer, had been hired by Cameron “to provide behind-the-scenes images of the Tory leader to the media as he fights to win power”.   But, if he is going to succeed with the press, Cameron has realised that the front image is far more important than behind the scenes.  And his wife has her role to play too.

Mrs Camera-On was the belle of the ball at the conference last week, and, knowing that all cameras would equally be on her, not a hair was out of place. Her now famous polka dot number hailed from highstreet chain Marks and Sparks, and cost a mere £65. A blatant attempt at media courting. The forties style of the dress, even without the price tag, evoked an age of World War II rationing. Read:  a subliminal message to voters that  “we conservatives are  feeling the pinch too, don’t you know”. Note to David, don’t forget that your own bespoke suit cost the same price as your average second hand car at some £3500. When these sorts of cracks show, its more ‘En vogue’ than ‘Man of the People’.

But  are we really fooled? And more importantly, do we really care about this media swooning? We must all be aware by now that Cameron (who’s social CV  includes: descendant of George II, Eton educated and an Oxford graduate), is certainly neither Middle Class nor ‘one of us’.

But Team Camera-On are making sure he is more ‘middle’ than Middle England itself. When exposed for his dabble in Hunting, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Tory Spin machine would rather an expose of an illicit drug filled past than any involvement in hunting. Nothing screams ‘toff’ more than hunting itself, and the toff tag is everything that the ‘New Conservatives’ are trying hard to avoid.  No doubt they were falling over themselves to issue the following statement: “David Cameron hasn’t been shooting for years. He has no plans to go again.” But do we really care that he is pure toff? His accent and schooling worry me less than his policies towards the country.

So, when Camera-On slips up by sipping up champagne at the conference, or gets ‘exposed’ as a one time member of the Oxford University Bullingdon Club with  Boris Johnson (which, for the record ‘embarrasses’ him now) ,it just reminds me of how unconnected with the Middle classes this ‘PM in Waiting’ is.

I sometimes, almost, very nearly find myself warming to him.  But, I need not worry too much, it’s surely just a matter of time until Mr Camera-On goes Off?  But, I might just be fooling myself there as much as the Tory Spin team are fooling us.

10 Comments

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI