Where Does He Stand?

Morning all!

On one of my posts concerning David Cameron, my friend Katherine Kenward, who frequently has the upper hand on me in political debates, told me that

"I am inclined to disagree with your thoughts on a return to an old Thatcherite style!"

Clearly, she has a very good point: David Cameron is not a politician of the Thatcher mould. He is his own man, he says there is such a thing as society, and he is clearly aware that some people do not like the idea of returning to the 1980's.

So it is extremely disappointing that some people in his party think otherwise.

How, I ask you, is this not Thatcherite rhetoric?

It reeks of the stuff. It sounds as if Norman Tebbit, he of the "Get on your bike and look for work" soundbite, was the author: and with the former Cabinet minister voicing concern about the Conservative's position in the polls, perhaps it was.

And even if I did fully agree with the idea of a do-it-yourself, laissez-faire society, the layout is shocking. Cameron is half in the shot; the people behind him are blurred; the typeface is crude and off-putting; and the "Vote Conservative" tagline sounds like an afterthought. It's almost as if someone's gone "Hang on, we'll look like a tabloid if we don't put that in!" It says a lot when the Conservative Party's best poster is a copy of someone else's.

But here is the despicable element of it: it is not Cameron saying it. It is an element of his party getting twitchy about having to work in a hung parliament, which gives them nightmares of the 1974 variety. So some of his team have decided that a shift to the right is needed, lest they end up like Edward Heath, the man who lost three General Elections and promptly sulked.

Cameron is a smarter man than Heath: he certainly has better PR. Yet for some mad reason, he has fallen for this alienating, Daily Mail rhetoric that threatens to make me write him off: though I would argue that it is crucial to remain impartial where possible. After all, he undoubtedly has the potential to do very well in politics.

But - and I feel as if I almost have to yell this - Why? Has the man or the party forgotten the cardinal rule of elections? You do not change your tone half-way through a campaign!

Why did John Kerry lose in 2004? Because he flip-flopped while Dubya remained consistent. Why did Labour get crushed in 1983? Because their former leader, James Callaghan, criticised their defence policy at a time when Thatcher had just won the Falklands War: proof that a left-wing party can also be guilty of such an error.

And have the Conservatives forgotten that the reason for their defeat in 1997 was not because of the economy, which was recovering under the brilliant Chancellorship of Kenneth Clarke, but because of divisions between senior Cabinet colleagues? "I lead my party, he follows his" was the stinging remark directed at John Major by Tony Blair: and whilst I do not for one moment declare myself an admirer of the man who has liar hidden in his name, he had a valid point.

Thatcher, on the other hand, was a great leader of the Conservative Party because she did not automatically tow the party line, and yet still managed to unite it against the threat of militant unions. She was radical; she was not part of the establishment; she irritated her colleagues. But like Churchill, she was the right person at the right time: though sadly, both were humiliated for their efforts.

You may well despise Thatcher: having read about her, I can see why you might. But it is the Conservative Party that ousted her in 1990 which I find more despicable. Their decision to sack her was the ultimate act of cutting off your nose to spite your face: and they wonder why it still haunts them.



Major; Hague; Duncan-Smith; Howard; all tried to following the party line, yet they spoke in terms similar to Thatcher. It was a recipe for disaster.

So I was pleased when Cameron started to differ from this. He was an outsider himself in 2005: few people expected him to beat David Davis, but he did. He brought the Conservatives back to the centre, it appeared. He also brought back Kenneth Clarke in order to show that Liberal Conservatives had a future in the party. He oh-so-nearly had my vote: like him, I was tiring of Gordon Brown, and remained unconvinced by Nick Clegg.

But this poster of his? It is not Thatcherism with a social conscience: if it was, it would sound sympathetic. It is, ironically, the Conservatism of Edward Heath: trying to modernise, but in the end, having to U-turn the Quattro when people start asking questions.

And frankly, it leaves me deeply puzzled as to the party's message. I can believe Conservatism is good for me, but how can I if I don't know what it is? Is it Thatcherite or not?

I, at least, can briefly spare the luxury of not knowing my exact position. But for a man who you would presume is going to vote for himself, such luxuries are long gone. He needs to be decisive, not change his political broadcast at the last minute. I like what he's saying about strong values: but saying "Vote for Change: but not that change, that change is bad, you can only have the change I want" leaves me, as a voter, saying "Whaaaaaat?"



Maybe there's still hope for the Conservatives: with several of their candidates being excellent servants of our country, I do not want to see them lose because of someone else's mistake.

But this mistake has been made. And if it is not rectified - if Cameron allows parts of his party to continue peddling hatred - then I am afraid that hatred, however unjustified it may be, will be peddled in return by the electorate. They do not treat the divided kindly, as the Labour Party of the 1980s found out.

You can tell me to vote for change: that's fair enough. But to then say I can only vote for the change that means a Conservative majority?

Will the real David Cameron please stand up. Either be prepared to work with other parties, including the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, and keep your party in the centre as you claim you want to, or declare yourself as wanting to be like Thatcher and thus admit you do not represent forward change.

I will honestly not mind if you admit the latter: it would at least be honest. But trying to be both will end with alienation on both the left and the right, and confusion in the centre.

In other words, it will lead to a hung parliament. And on the basis of what they have been saying, Cameron and his party will be the victim of it, just as Edward Heath was in 1974.

Chris