Graham Brady on the appeal of David Cameron

Posted on Monday 30 July, 2007
Filed Under Conservative Party

 


Conservative backbencher Graham Brady – the man who quit as Europe spokesman last May because he opposed party policy on grammar schools – reckons that his party’s leader isn’t going down well in Middle England. Brady argues:

“The changes David Cameron has made in the Conservative Party have been very successful in some places, and have been better at reaching out to a more liberal, metropolitan mindset.

“But they have not been making the same impact further away from London – in the north, in the Midlands, in places which really are an absolutely key electoral battlefield if we’re going to win a general election.”

As a paid-up north London muesli belt socialist – albeit one who once had close ties to a small town in the east Midlands – I can’t help suspecting he is right.

I have always thought that not giving Kenneth Clarke the top job was the Tories’ worst tactical mistake of the 1990s. That brand of jazz-loving, pint-drinking, panatella-smoking Hush Puppy-clad pot-bellied bonhomie would have been just the persona to win over provincial good blokes across England.

It now looks as if the Europe-obsessed wingnuts of the Tory right will cause a few ructions this autumn, most likely around such standard hot button issues of law and order and tax cuts. Perhaps we’ll even see some ugly racism thrown in as a sideline.

Good. It will be helpful to remind everybody that underneath that Clinique for Men-doused metrosexual visage that Cameron so effortlessly affects, the Conservatives are still viscerally the Nasty Party.


<<Go back

Comments

8 Responses to “Graham Brady on the appeal of David Cameron”

  1. Last of the Blairites
    on July 30th, 2007 at 21:49

    Come on then, where are all the “let it bleed” comments, all the people telling us that it makes no difference if the Tories win or even that it is better because it exposes the contradictions?

    Cat got your tongue?

  2. Lobby Ludd
    on July 30th, 2007 at 22:52

    Well, Last, you have plucked two peripherally related arguments out of the air and then chided others for not pre-emptively making them.

    Come on then, Last, why your suspicious silence re East Timor?

    There are plenty of arguments, good, bad, indifferent or ugly about a Nu-lab government versus a Tory government. I suspect the least significant one will come from someone who designates himself ‘Last of the Blairites’.

  3. Charlie Marks
    on July 30th, 2007 at 23:40

    Brady quit this May, not last May — I know it seems like a long time ago already!

    The pointless Tory in-fighting about grammar schools was supposed to be Cameron’s “Clause Four” moment. Hmm, I don’t recall the Tories having a commitment to the public ownership and control of the means of production…

    Obviously, the ruling class was indifferent to Cameron’s display of toughness — the grammar school issue hardly matters as much as eradicating all mention of socialism from a social democratic party (yes, the new clause four mentions socialism, but you get the picture). When Cameron did a swift U-turn, his toughness was shown as weakness. Ever since, he’s been on the slide…

  4. http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/
    on July 31st, 2007 at 01:12

    let’s hope that the Tory scum throw out Cameron, start yet another round of recriminations and fall apart just before a General Election

    that would be perfect timing

  5. Phil
    on July 31st, 2007 at 07:39

    It will be helpful to remind everybody that underneath that Clinique for Men-doused metrosexual visage that Cameron so effortlessly affects, the Conservatives are still viscerally the Nasty Party.

    Yes – it’s a bit like moving Labour to the Left, only without all the effort.

  6. andy newman
    on July 31st, 2007 at 10:24

    I don’t think anyone has ever argued that the Tories were not a nasty party, and indeed a detailed analysis of the last election showed that fear of a Tory victory was labour’s strongest card, and it the ultra marginals like East? Dorset and Dunfries and Galloway saw a big swing to Labour in 2005.

    However, we must also unpack the argument a little, becasue both Labour and the Conservatives are big electoral coalitions, with different tensions and processes within them.

    In the north for example, non ideological but ambitious wannabe politicians would naturally join Labour to be on the council. In most of the south that role would be played by the Tories. The emphasis here being on non-ideological – that is reflecting the current common sense of the Blair-Brown-Cameron consensus.

    So in Trowbridge an incoming Tory adminstration is trying to bring back in house various municipal services that were privatised by the Lib Dems. In both Southhampton and Swindon delegations of Tory councillors visited the PCS picket lines to express support.

    London represents a different dynamic still, where class differentiation is greater in the capital, and Livingston’s mayorality broadly progressive.

    Fundamentally there is little ideological difference between Labour and the Tories. And someone called Dave Osler wrote a book about Labour party PLC showing how it had become a party of big business. That doesn’t mean that there would be no difference between a labour and Tory government, but on a number of issues the Tories are currently to the left of labour – for example IP cards, and other civil liberties. And also many Tories support the call for an English parliament.

    Now before I am misunderstood or misquoted, obvioulsy i am not saying the Tories are progressive, or that i would ever vote for them, but it is no use pretending that nothing has changed.

  7. Tom P
    on July 31st, 2007 at 11:10

    Andy

    Can you explain how the Tories position on ID cards is to the Left of Labour?

    I am pretty undecided on the issue, but I am unconvinced that it is a Left/Right question. The Lib Dems go big on such civil liberty issues, but are increasingly edging Right on economic policy. Equally there are libertarian free market types who see ID cards on the same spectrum as state involvement in the economy.

    I regard myself as a Lefty, not a liberal. Civil liberties arguments rarely get me animated, but I’m definitely well to the left of the Labour leadership on income inequality. Just strikes me as an easy stick to beat the govt with, rather than genuine critique from the Left.

  8. andy newman
    on July 31st, 2007 at 11:36

    The current Tory position on ID cards is that it is not the role of the police in a free society to be monitoring the lawful activity and movement of citizens.

    I think their position is not simple opportunism, because Churchill abolished ID cards, and Michael Howard’s support for them was an anachronism (perhaps he picked it up when he was in the Labour party!), opposed by most of the Tory party when he adopted it.

    (Of course anyone who rememebrs the Miner’s Strike, the Stockport Messenger or wapping will be a bit surprised by the current Tory reluctance to use the police in such a way!)

    That doesn’t lessen the ideological importance of opposing ID cards, as they represent an acceptance of the state’s “neutral” role and accepptnace that the state can intervene at any time in the private lives iof citizens. It will only be a short while before people will be stopped to have their ID cards checked, and the hated SUS laws will be resurected through the back door.

    The ideological dimension behing New labour introducing ID acrds is explicit in the fact that they will be utterly useless in acheiving their publicly stated objectives, and the technology won’t work (which is my professional opinion)