UK Politics
Grim up north?
Published 29 November 2007
While Brown suffers, all is not totally rosy in the Cameron garden, either.
During Gordon Brown's lengthy summer honeymoon, just before conference season began, hairline cracks started to appear in the Conservative Party. These whispers of discontent did not originate in metropolitan London, whose Tory inhabitants were more than content with the Cameron agenda. It was struggling party workers in the Midlands and the north who started to question: What is Cameronism to us?
"This summer was a wake-up call to how cap ricious even our own flock can be, never mind the electorate," a Cameron aide recalls. "You'll notice the speech in Blackpool didn't really have a core message to change Britain. The sole purpose was to rally Dave."
Cameron's speech did the trick, but not all party supporters recognised the policy announcements as vote winners. As one Birmingham candidate put it: "Most first-time buyers here don't pay much stamp duty and their parents aren't passing on much of a family pile. Inheritance tax is a complete irrelevance to us."
A constituency chairwoman from the north-west is adamant: "Everyone down south underestimates the regions. David Cameron epitomises the south-east."
She could be right. The polls show votes piling up in safe constituencies but little or no change in the Midlands and the north.
Before the last general election there were only six professional football grounds in Conservative constituencies. The Conservative Party has perished in large parts of England, just like it has in Scotland, and that is the problem. A Tory strategist says: "We've already won back the people living up crunchy drives in England. It's the 'muck'n'brass, country's gone to the dogs' bunch we're fighting for. Thatcher's people." A Conservative candidate in the unenviable position of standing in one of the north's safest Labour seats is sombre. "Canvassing as a Tory is hard in this area. They are the sort of voter who would rather not vote than vote Conservative."
Although he has to say he is "in it to win it", he is honest enough to admit that his prospects are far from realistic. "It's a tour of duty. My aim is to reduce Labour's majority as much as possible to impress the candidates' department in CCHQ. This gives me a better chance of standing in a winnable Tory seat . . . in 2014." There are many going through the same exhausting, soul-destroying process.
What about other potential slip-ups? Conservative Party headquarters is resigned to the probability of an "unhelpful" comment being made by a candidate, councillor, MP, or shadow cabinet member every six weeks. Undoubtedly, due to school fees, ski trips and fitting solar roof panels, there will be MPs who realise that £60,000 is not enough to survive on, and who will find themselves sitting on the board of the wrong company at the wrong time.
A party press spokesman says: "There is very little you can do about individual quotes or personal situations once they are out there. David has made sure that anyone who says anything unacceptable is not tolerated. With luck, we'll see fewer of the slip-ups that have blighted us in the past."
Some are concerned about Cameron's present lack of definition, and about how to keep David "fresh". A Cameron aide says: "At the beginning one of the main advantages for Dave was novelty. That is over. It's all right to say this government is incompetent - people are generally starting to believe that - but we can't have them going to the Lib Dems or Ukip." There are, of course, other issues: unresolved tax tensions, Europe (the post-ratification referendum is a potential running sore), radical welfare reform. Abortion, homosexual adoption, lifestyle and family issues will rumble on.
Cameron will be reluctant to discuss many of these delicate areas; most have the potential to divide. A shadow minister who worked closely with Iain Duncan Smith says: "Conscience issues are tricky. Dave would be mad to try to whip the party and he won't - he knows what happened with IDS and Section 28. It's difficult, because he has to manage the change. The Steve Hilton theory is that you occasionally have to shock the party - but not enough to cause an upheaval, like the grammar schools nightmare."
There are differing views on tactics if the election date is the long haul of 2010. Various shadow ministers, when asked about Cameron, have mixed thoughts. "He has to be visible and competent. He's got to have a hundred interesting things to say that will dominate the agenda every day," says one. "He could do less and do it better," says another. "There needs to be more of a sense of who he is. We don't need a headline every day. One [policy] a week is fine."
A backbencher sums it up: "If Labour sort themselves out, they could pull it back. The polls have never been so volatile, and the electorate has never been so fickle. Unlike Labour in '97, looking at the polling and hanging around for election day is not an option."
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
