John Rentoul: Cameron blew it. Labour can win
The Tory leader's big speech was a dud that can cost him the election – if Gordon Brown stands aside
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Robert Conquest made two great contributions to human knowledge. As a historian he revealed the truth about Stalin's purges in the 1930s. As a writer, he formulated two laws. His First Law states: "Everybody is reactionary on subjects he knows about." I don't think it is true. I would say that everyone is a gradualist reformer on subjects they understand. But Conquest's Second Law is a good guide to life, and especially politics. It says: "Every organisation appears to be headed by secret agents of its opponents."
That is how we should analyse this pre-election party conference season. The Liberal Democrats had clearly been infiltrated by a Conservative mole with a sense of humour. What would be funnier, the mole must have thought, than to have the party that wants to abolish property tax and replace it with a local income tax come out for a new tax on more expensive properties?
The Labour conference was plainly choreographed by Conservative Campaign HQ. The one thing that united the Conservatives in Manchester last week was their private desire to see Gordon Brown stay as Prime Minister up to the election. Hence the need for Labour, and Brown, to show resilience, determination and discipline.
The strategy for inflicting maximum damage on Labour's chances required the Prime Minister to make a good, but not very good, speech, and for everyone to stop talking about the leadership. Hence Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, read like a hostage from a script drafted by Andy Coulson, just as conference opened, saying: "I haven't got that real aching desire to lead, which really is an essential quality in a leader." It worked a treat.
As the Conservatives converged on Manchester, they must have thought, what could possibly go wrong? All we have to do is pretend to come up with some policies so that people don't say that we are completely vacuous, and David Cameron needs to make a speech that sounds serious. A good speech – and we know Cameron can do good speeches – would lift the Tories for the final straight and put the election beyond Labour's reach.
They reckoned without Conquest's Second Law. They did not realise that their conference had been planned by a Labour secret agent. Peter Mandelson, probably. Thus journalists were obsessed during the first few days with Europe. The general public is not much interested in the Lisbon Treaty, nor in the precise suspect qualities of the Tories' Polish and Latvian allies in the European Parliament. But it gave Boris Johnson the chance to grandstand, and prevented the Conservatives getting their messages across.
Then came the two big speeches of the week, George Osborne's and Cameron's; both of them brilliantly sabotaged by Mandelson. The Shadow Chancellor proposed to save money in the parliament after next by raising the state pension age more quickly. It was disclosed to selected journalists the day before the speech, and rather late in the day. This had two results. One was that much of the reporting of the plan was wrong, in that it was not until later that we realised that, while men would have to work a year longer from 2016, women would not be affected until 2020. The other was that cynical bystanders such as me assumed that the purpose in briefing the story was to push Boris down the headlines. Beyond that were two larger puzzles. One was that the Tories are trying to cut public spending at the expense, particularly, of people on lower incomes – contradicting their claim to compassionate conservatism. The other was that it won't save any money before the election after next, so it is not only damaging with low-income voters but need not be announced now.
Then there was the double agent's triumph: the leader's speech. Cameron has excelled at this before. Indeed, legend holds that he won the leadership of his party by delivering the speech of his life at the beauty-contest conference in Blackpool in 2005. Legend also has it that he stopped Gordon Brown calling a snap election in 2007 by making the speech of his life, the walk-and-talk performance when the text was engraved on the inside of his eyeballs. Given that this was an odd-numbered year, therefore, it was time for Cameron to make – well, Anthony Seldon spelt it out a month ago in The Daily Telegraph: "Cameron's speech at the party conference in early October must be the most important speech of his life."
Last week was not, therefore, the time to come up with a dud. Which is what he did. I didn't like him watching his daughter skip across the playground on her first day at school. I thought it was unwise to say: "I want every child to have the chances I had." As someone was bound to comment, that is going to cost a fortune in tailcoats. When he said: "I am not a complicated person," I thought it wasn't for him to say. I may not be the best person to judge, because I do not really like the big conference set-piece as an art form. Despite my slavish admiration for a former prime minister, I never liked even his overwrought rhetorical presentations. But nobody seems to have enthused about Cameron's speech on Thursday.
That means that Cameron is the big loser from the conference season. He was the leader with the chance to move up a gear; with a media willing him to do it and an electorate ready to listen. And what did he have to say? Big government bad; health visitors good; Labour hasn't done enough to reverse the inequality of the Thatcher years. He blew it.
And that means that it is not all over yet. The really important polls last week were those showing Labour doing better against the Conservatives than Brown does against Cameron. That means that, despite Alan Johnson's modesty and David Miliband's gawkiness, it is still worth Labour changing its leader. That is what the Tories fear. They need to be 11 or 12 points ahead in their share of the vote to win a majority in the House of Commons. I do not believe that Labour can get that close under Gordon Brown, but could do so under another leader.
John Rentoul's blog is at independent.co.uk/jrentoul
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Does it not occur to you that this statement alone disqualifies the 'assessment' offered in your article? or that it might indicate that your politics are so blinkered and 'slavish' (your choice of word) that you really missed the point of what Cameron had to do?
Whatever his private virtues, the public persona of Brown is that of a deeply unpleasant individual who always knows better, and who always thinks he is smarter and cleverer than everybody else. He is, in public therefore, a colossal bore and arrogant to boot. All Cameron had to do, as a consequence, was appear to be pleasant and competent. This he did with ease. One may have wished for more, and certainly his Oxbridge educated staff ought to have come up with a better speech, but the one trap he avoided was being clever. Brown is always too clever by half.
And as for your comment about his task being made more dificult because the lower constituency numbers in Wales and Scotland bias the electoral results towards Labour, that alone ought to be reason to vote for the Tories who at least will trim the number of MPs and rectify such electoral imbalances.
While Paul Krugman warns about the monetarist madness abroad. See http://bit.ly/fgjIT
Cameron needed to unveil a serious programme for government, we got a damp squib. If you took the Blairite mote out of your own eye, John, you might see more clearly.
But then what? The "hairshirt" strategy has a superficial appeal but when it comes to making actual cuts in public spending, listen to all the squeals of pain and outrage. The government that does it will have to have thought through its policies carefully or take the consequences.
I've thought for a while this will be a good election to lose. Through all the talk of a mountain of debt, I've heard very little about restructuring the economy in a sustainable way. Britain has paid its way in the world for a long time. No one's come up with the answer just yet.
It's definitely "the economy stupid". New Labour have made an almighty mess, but expecting Boy George Osborne to clear it up successfully lacks all credibility. We're being offered Hobson's choice at the election. Forgive the growing numbers of us for refusing to make that choice. A plague on both their houses!
"when the State loses the bludgeon, i.e. when you can’t control the people by force and when the voice of the people can be heard you have this problem, it may make people so curious and so ‘arrogant’ that they don’t have the ‘humility’ to submit to a civil rule then therefore you have to control what people think, and the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called propaganda, the manufacture of consent, the creation of various illusions, various ways of either marginalising the general public or reducing them to apathy"
This is how I see it:
Wake up call
Lennon, Chomsky, Russell, Walinger
Legend, Dissident, Philosopher and Poet
The Audacity of Thought I say
Oh yes we can
These are the heroes
Not tragic cannon fodder
But real heroes
No smokescreens for these boys, ‘our boys’ all
Sadly however it seems we’re not ready for enlightenment
We’re still in adolescence
Happy bouncing between red and blue
Not yet accustomed to the full spectrum of the rainbow
The problem with swinging left and right
Is that you never move forward
It’s time to take ourselves off to the moon again
To take a look in, we boiling frogs
VOTE GREEN
Lets say for argument's sake Brown's policies now does lessen the recession, although we cannot be really sure. What happens next time? And there will be a next time. we will be even weaker economically and evel less able to fight it. So unless someone takes some hard decisions now, we will e well and truly stuffed next time round.
My biggest concern is really that Cameron is no Thatcher, but rather another Macmillan. It was that fool and his Etonian cronies who stuffed Britain in the 1950s/early 1960s, and his errors were compounded by Wilson and Heath.
"Through all the talk of a mountain of debt, I've heard very little about restructuring the economy in a sustainable way."
True enough, I have no confidence in any of them. Cable talked a lot of sense until his tax expensive houses nonsense.
"A plague on both their houses!"
Yes, although sadly they will have all the private medical care they need while they slash and burn ours.
He don't like the BoE, therefore (presumably) at odds with the Scottish twins, and don't like Cameron, still there's always the mirror to reflect on such genius.
Perhaps for Mount Blanchflower we should read Antoinette & all should eat cake, or even humble pie as the genius presumably earns a fortune in the very sector he criticises?
Yes, Cameron 'blew it' to such an extent that the latest opinion poll shows the Tories have merely increased their lead by a mere 6% over Labour to 19%.
I cannot think of a more blatant example of ludicrous, one-sided, blatant wishful thinking in political journalism than Rentoul's daft article. That speech by Cameron was decisive, impressive, and in parts savage, but effectively so.
I suppose the Left have nothing but their wishful thinking left to them, as, in the case of Rentoul here, they whistle futileley in the strong wind that is blowing the Tories back to power.
Rentoul should wake up and smell the coffee. He obviously did not listen to Cameron's speech or if he did he wrote this article whilst sound asleep in the land of never.
Cognitive dissonance appears to be rife amongst left wing journalists.
p.s. I may or may not believe in fairies at the bottom of my garden but I sure as hell would not base an article on them.
Well, I heard David Cameron restating the One Nation Conservatism I remember from my youth. Highlighting the lunacies of a welfare system that rewards people for idleness, he pointed out that a single mother of two who starts a job paying £150 a week will be facing an effective tax of 96%. ZANU Labour has thus taken us back to the Dark Ages of that era when tax rates reached 98%. But under Harold Wilson that rate only affected the wealthiest. Gordon Brown’s unique achievement was to put that on the poorest members of society. Cameron's rejection of big-government solutions and his aim to give real power to people and communities certainly chimed with me. The announcement that Iain Duncan Smith will lead the reform of welfare reminded me of the days of hope when Tony Blair gave Frank Filed a similar role only to have it wrecked when Brown insisted Frank be 'controlled' by the loathsome Harriet Harperson. The difference between the two parties was underlined by the PM's earlier dire performance, yet again launching a lunacy of new and uncosted policies. Now in the post-ZANU world, if you put in the effort to bring in a wage, you will be better off. If you save, you will be rewarded. If you start a business, the state will back you. If you raise a family, you will be supported. If you are frightened, you will be protected. If you risk your own safety to stop a crime, the authorities will stand by you. If you fight for your country, you will be honoured. Well, that certainly has my vote.
Yes, and he did not come up with a single policy that would help resolve the problem. Laughable spin with no substance. Why are you taken in with this? I despair sometimes.
It's typical Cameron. Pose a problem, criticise, and then not come up with any solutions.
The Conservatives were in power for 18 years, yet did nothing to sort that out. Why would they bother to do so after the next election?
Cameron: utterly vapid, empty and spin-driven.
Forget your political leanings and argue that, as a leader, he's not an embarrassment.
I'm not one for exaggeration, as far as I know, but I've never, ever, seen Brown give a presentation or respond to a question in a credible or impressive way. He cuts a a dreadful public figure.
He is the most boring, turgid public speaker I've seen at any level or forum - whether within a company or at a public function. The content is always dull, and delivered with the commitment of someone reading a telephone directory - inevitably, laundry lists of assertions, dressed up as facts.
But what's worse is his disingenuity and the frequent, blatant dishonesty in the "facts" he quotes. Don't read into the statements what he wants you, the listeners, to think. Focus on his actual words, which mean something quite different. Announcements about proposed action become reality in his world - a political Twilight Zone, where you can say whatever you want and expect that people will believe unquestioningly.
Blair is held by many to be The Great Dissembler. I disagree.
Brown has always been the more blatant deceiver - usually through deliberately selective and inappropriate use of data. Mark his false claims about maintaining spending in real terms ("investment"). For that he has more "form" than Sea the Stars.
It's perfectly possible to make a decision now, as it's been for a long time, about Brown's disastrous performance as Chancellor and as PM - along with that of the various ministers who've been shuffled from one portfolio to another, or in and out like a revolving door (like Mandelson).
There's a plain, indisputable, undeniable record of long-term, bad decision-making and failure since 1997, which is long enough to fill the Library of Congress.
If the Labour Party were an EPL team, with the bad results they've had, the manager (Brown) would have been sacked years ago, along with most of their under-performing players.
We've had every furphy under the sun produced by Brown about the economy, investment and all the parts of everyone's life. What about that nonsense about "inexperience" - that thing which Labour didn't have in 1997? They had been out of office since 1979!!
If you use Brown's comment about the "crisis" in 2008 which needed experience, then you can argue there couldn't have been any crisis in 1997. That's why it was acceptable to have an "inexperienced party" come in. But, boy, didn't the future results demonstrate that inexperience and incompetence!
When you look at the problems we have today in every compartment, you can only look back wistfully at those (bad old?) days in 1997.
The Economy is in a mess and must be sorted out.
The LibDems have failed to make the breakthrough at Labour's expense that they needed to do to bring them into contention.
A Hung Parliament would be a disaster, the only intact and large enough political party which could form a Government currently are the Conservatives.
Labour under Brown is unelectable but the Blair Brown Feud has hollowed out the Labour Party so there are no serious alternatives, Johnson a Miliband - you must be joking, labour need a charismatic leader to drag them out of this mire and they don't have a Blair MkII stuck in a cupboard somewhere. Labour ran out of front bench talent under Blair, his solution was to move John Reid from one Department to another, constantly, this is not a new problem for them and it is too late to resolve it now.
The Labour Party is like the British Davis Cup Tennis Team, Andy Murray and who ? Gordon Brown and who ?
It is time to be realistic. Regardless of whether you like him or not, it has taken Cameron 3 hard years to turn his Party around and establish himself as a credible PM in waiting, the Labour Party has at most 6 months and because of the state of the economy, has lost any authority as the incumbent Government to help them - game over.
As a footnote, with the Royal Mail engaged in a fight to commit suicide faster than their business is disappearing, I'm not sure that Postman Pat would be a bright choice anyway.
Actually, a large number of commentators either enthused over Cameron's speech or accepted that it was very competent but not great - but possibly not commentators you're inclined to read or listen to?
The Sun blatently ditched Labour the day after after Brown's speech in favour of the Tories. They enthused about Cameron's.
The latest poll showed that the Tories have stretched their lead over Labour to 19%.
Brown will only go on health grounds because he couldn't possibly admit that he is unelectable. This will be highly suspect since he declared to Andrew Marr only 3 weeks ago that he has NO health issues. (We're being softened up at the moment with release of the news that he had to re-attend Moorfields). So once again, Labour will be shown up for the liars they are.
The majority of the media; expert advisers (Dannett/Vorderman etc) and various hangers-on such as Bono are anticipating a Tory win.
If Klaus backs down and ratifies the Lisbon Treaty and the EU 'leaders' install Blair as President, the Tories' ratings will improve still further.
I really don't think imposing another unelected PM - such as the completely gormless David Miliband - is going to make much difference. Johnson has consistently said he isn't up to the job of PM and doesn't want it - so moving him into No.10 shouldn't pose too much of a problem. The Tories just have to keep repeating Johnson's own assessment of his competence, suitability and desire for the job.
Labour doesn't know what democracy means.
According to a Sept 09 ICM poll (http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/media-cen
(2) "Cameron is the big loser from the conference season"
According to a poll in todays NotW (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/arch
(2) "Cameron is the big loser from the conference season" - according to a poll in today’s NotW (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/arch
Keep going mate.
How can paulstpancras say " everyone knows the cameroons are blowing the economy" when a decent majority of people clearly dont know anything of the sort. Its just the most silly kind of whistling in the dark.
I've seen a series of Tory and Labour governments in my 60 years and few have impressed me. The competent chancellors I can count easily on one hand. I'd rate Roy Jenkins and Denis Healey for Labour, and Ken Clarke for the Tories. All three were dealt difficult hands by their predecessors and did much to retrieve the situation.
The jury is still out on Alistair Darling and I have grave doubts about George Osborne, if he makes it next year. This view has nothing to do with party politics because I support neither Labour nor Tory. I look at results. The next chancellor will be dealt an awful hand. I am not hopeful of a successful outcome. Vince Cable may yet be the best chancellor we never had - unfortunately.
I totally agree with your sentiments Tony but unfortunately a huge number of Guardian posters and quite a few on here, don't think a reduction in this level of debt is required soonest. It is because we are stupid and do not have the intelligence to understand the great benefits of outrageous levels of dept.
Follow this; Your grandad owed £750 on his house in 1956. You owe £120,000 on your house now. As a percentage of earnings grandads debt was greater than yours. So whats the problem? I think I will order a new Aston Martin.
A candy-colored clown they call the sandman
Tiptoes to my room every night
Just to sprinkle stardust and to whisper
Go to sleep. everything is all right.
I close my eyes, then I drift away
Into the magic night. I softly say
A silent prayerlike dreamers do.
Then I fall asleep to dream my dreams of you.
In dreams I walk with you. in dreams I talk to you.
In dreams youre mine. all of the time were together
In dreams, in dreams.
But just before the dawn, I awake and find you gone.
I cant help it, I cant help it, if I cry.
I remember that you said goodbye.
Its too bad that all these things, can only happen in my dreams
Only in dreams in beautiful dreams.
This sort of agitprop makes me sick, labour have F..... this country up every which way from sundown, the fact that brain dead columnists continue to bleat support for the bastards is irritating in the extreme.
Somehow, though - and despite some electioneering chest-thumping and stick-waving - I can't imagine Cameron and Osborne being less banker-friendly than Brown. He loved 'em even though he wasn't naturally part of their social circle. The Cameroons inhabit the same millionaire elite world, and party on the same yachts in the same Mediterranean marinas.
As, indeed, these days, do some of the significant prima donnas of New Labour ...
They're all "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich". Indeed's Mandelson's was an under-statement - it's not a matter of being "relaxed" about it, it's more like being focused upon it, as indeed the expenses scam continues to remind us all ...
Choice? Don't make me laugh ... Just as so many in New Labour weren't on our side, but their own, so it will prove with the Cameroons, should they get what they want next year ... Are we all really mugs enough to swap pigswill for cowpats?
this article is just petty preconditioned bias. My justification (beyond the recent poll surge for the tories that utterly destroys your premise) is that it is obvious that you had a message to put across which I suggest would have been largely the same no matter what Cameron had said. Further evidence is provided by the fact that the first half and second half of your article appear to be completely disconnected and no linkage is provided between the two. Some would call this poor journalism. More specifically, you are so arrogant as to quote the philosphy of a 1930's historian as an opening background then immediately dismiss half of that individuals thinking without any reason or debate at all. Are you so much cleverer than Robert Conquest? Is it not obvious that readers of your article might say that since that clever Rentoul chap has disagreed with Conquests first law that obvioulsy the second one is junk also? You provided no evidence in your article whatsoever and therefore no argument, principle, hypothesis or law of your own. The one prognosis you make is just an equally arrogant suggestion that you know how the electorate of this great country of ours would vote given a hypothetical change in leadership, with once again the minimimal of evidence offered. On that basis I will stick with Conquests' first law rather than your own interpretation, and on that basis your article is the same preconditioned tripe which isn't reactionary simply because you do not know what you are talking about!