John Rentoul has written about the core vote v modernisation issue in the Independent on Sunday today. He attributes it all to a conflict between Andy Coulson and Steve Hilton.
Since Cameron hired Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, as his
director of communications in the early summer, the dynamics of the Tory leader's inner circle have changed. Previously, the fundamental strategy of Cameron's leadership had been set by Steve Hilton, the anonymous political consultant responsible for the radical repositioning of the Conservatives on the Blairite centre ground.Under Hilton's guidance, Cameron went green, made the NHS his top priority and got Tory audiences to applaud gay marriage. The Conservatives were rewarded by a sustained boost in the opinion polls that lifted them above Labour. Coulson's arrival coincided with the end of that phase of Tory revival. Even before Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, the terms of trade between Government and Opposition started to shift. Once Labour regained its lead in the polls, spooked Conservatives were no longer sure that their leader was a modern Moses.
At this point, on the question of how Cameron should respond to a resurgent Labour Party, a divide opened up between Hilton and Coulson. Coulson thought it was time for Cameron to try to win back the support of the right-wing press: The Sun, the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. Hilton thought that Cameron should stick to the script: take the centre ground; keep challenging people's expectations of the Tory party.
The tension came to a head over an accidental issue. Cameron had arranged a trip to
Rwanda to dramatise his commitment to African development, but it coincided with
flooding in Britain. Coulson wanted to abandon the trip so that Cameron could put on his wellingtons and show solidarity with Brits in Trouble at Home. Hilton argued for the trip to go ahead and won the day. Unfortunately for him, the verdict of most of the press and most of the Tory party was that the African sojourn made Cameron look out of touch. Cameron was annoyed and more ready to listen to Coulson's advice.
Rentoul says that as a tactic, Coulson's tactics may work in the short term and head off an autumn election, but in the long term they are a disaster and threaten to undermine all the gains made in Cameron's first eighteen months. Read Rentouls's article in full as it is an interesting insight. I can't say I think he's entirely on the money, but it is certainly worth further thought.
More in The Times HERE. it has some quotes from "a friend of Eliasch", but the Conservatives have issued a comment denying his resignation is anything to do with a strategy clash. "Johann Eliasch has stood down as a deputy treasurer to focus on climate change issues, however, his full and financial support for David Cameron's leadership continues."
UPDATE: It's not all bad news for the Tories. Two new polls show the party level pegging with Labour in one poll and three points behind in another. Both show the LibDems on 15%.
UPDATE: Ben Brogan's on fire tonight. He has a scoop that Tory MP John Bercow is going to be doing some work for Gordon Brown. On that note I think I shall stop, before I write anything litigious.
31 comments:
It's very simple. Andy Coulson has proved himself in another walk of life. Steve Hilton hasn't. His 'genius' is in convincing CCHQ lackies that he is a genius. He just isn't anything of the sort. His only qualification is being Dave's pal.
As an onlooker, long term expat, it is startling to me that any talk of actually controlling who comes and goes from the UK, any criticism of the NHS, any talk of lowering taxation levels,any talk of how to crack down on crime and so on is classified as a "lurch to the right".
Seems like the left now completely controls the agenda.
Bad news.
We really need to nail the premise on the lurch to the right ploy from Labour.
The implication is that right = bad, left = good.
Bearing in mind that the National Socialists, the Soviets, the Maoists and the British Union of Fascists ( lead by an ex-Labour MP) we all left wing things should work out the other way round.
Left wing politics has lead to the industrialised slaughter of millions upon millions of people by starvation in from failed farm collectivisation, purges, killing fields, and straight forward industrialised genocide.
Which party has taken us to war the most over the last 50 years ? Which party doesn't even seem to care if its Prime Minister is telling the truth on WMD or the then Chancellor has any integrity at all to deal with that moral and patriotic failure of duty ?
Stuff lurching in any direction. Its socialism that is the ideology that dare not speak its name - Gordon Brown who now seems to have been cowering under the cabinet table for ten years - and we need to remind the likes of Brown about that.
This is classic NuLab stuff. They are desperately trying to portray Cameron as inconsistent, find apparent splits and spin the "lurch to the right" stuff as they have always done.
Coulson and Hilton both know they are up against the formidable, yet predicable, NuLab triangulation machine. There will be a phase two that both are signed up to. The plan is unfolding. I do like it when a plan comes together!
Conservative party HQ and its donor list is shot through with Labour party moles and fellow travellers.
Forget cash for honours.
The real scandal is "embarrass the Tory Party for honors".
How on earth did Johan Eliasch ever become a deputy treasurer of the Conservative party? A Swedish businessman who runs a not very successful Austrian sporting goods company who tries to bolster his company's credibility by putting a former socialist chancellor of Austria(Viktor Klima) and a former US defence secretgary (William S Cohen) on his supervisory board. What particular connection he had to the Tories, apart from lending them a load of money, is impossible to define. He should never have been given the deputy Treasurer's job in the first place. Will the Tories never learn?
Man in a Shed should be advising Dave, and I dare say he is cheaper that SH or AC..
"Which party has taken us to war the most over the last 50 years ? Which party doesn't even seem to care if its Prime Minister is telling the truth on WMD or the then Chancellor has any integrity at all to deal with that moral and patriotic failure of duty ?"
Unfortunately the Tories lucked out on the Iraq war, evinced similar party lines, and now many realise they called it wrong.
Cameron acts as if he is privy to information about Iraq - and things generally to do with the Middle East - in that he gives the appearance of going along with the Government at every step of the way.
Now I understand that in times of war it is important to show national solidarity, and that he has to wear the mantle of statesman ship, but how, I wonder, does Cameron's position on Foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, differ from Brown's or his Blair's, and if it does not, how then does the Cameron/Brown relationship differ from the Blair/Bush relationship, apart from public rhetoric?
Hasn't Bercow been on our books for quite some time now? Does he still take the Tory whip?
looks like telegrpah read guido
but do they credit him
Gordon Brown's friend wins £3m in contracts
By Robert Watts, Whitehall Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:16am BST 02/09/2007
It's Bercow.. the only surprising thing about this is that Gordo would touch the slimey little weasel with a bargepole.
Which wars have we been taken into?
Main ones off the top of head, with party bringing it on :
WWI : Liberals
WWII : Third Reich / Tories (eventually)
Korea : USA / United Nations
Suez: Tories
Vietnam : Didn't bother (Labour)
Malvinas : Tories (apols for trollery)
Iraq I: USA / Tory
Iraq II: USA / Labour
Finally we get to ONE that is consistent with man in a shed's assertion about most Brit involvement in wars in the last 50 years was started by lefties.
But hey ho let's not let facts and reasonableness get in the way.
To be honest I don't see the Coulson/Hilton thing as pivotal. More likely to be the main factor that is underpinning Cameron's change of emphasis is that he seems to have won Murdoch's ear. Coulson's arrival is a factor but probably less significant.
The Brown takeover, the lack of communication between Brown and Bush, the erosion of Labour in Scotland, the erosion of Brown's support within his own Party, with the Unions, especially over Europe seems to have convinced Murdoch to back Cameron strongly, and attack Brown firmly.
Murdoch moving away from Brown is the main change, as it has permitted Cameron to broaden out his policy profile, and tackle BBC bias, which he and Redwood and Coulson have done brilliantly.
The attacks on Cameron about the floods/Rwanda were so overdone and contrived - and the notion that this media play is behind a palace coup against Hilton is a cute tale but not persuasive. Hilton had to reposition the Tory brand which he did well.
The Bercow rumour is interesting. It's as if defections are seen as a less interesting way to undermine Cameron than merely employing Conservatives without having a high profile defection. Bercow is a rampant europhile, and his disloyalty to cameron is assured. Why don't his Constituents get rid of him before he does real damage?
A Conservative lurch to the right? That's a joke. Anyone who listened to Goerge Osborne on the Today programme at 7.30 this morning might have imagined that they were listening to someone from New Labour: increased public spending; offsetting of any tax cuts by new taxes, such as carbon taxes. This is exactly the sort of stuff that is going to get us resoundingly beaten at the General Election. If the front bench don't understand the fiscal policies that are required to achieve small government, then we haven't a hope (as I am arguing strongly on my own blog).
Chris Paul - Kosovo? Sierra Leone? Afghanistan? or even Norther Ireland?
Man in a shed [11.46 PM]. I agree. In certain journalistic circles "left-wing" is a hurrah phrase and "right-wing" a boo phrase.
I had to smile in 1991, when it was proposed that Leningrad should revert to its old name of St Petersburg. The BBC, who presumably approved, described this profoundly conservative suggestion as "left wing".
On a different point, do we have Steve Hilton to blame for Cameron's bicycle-with-following-limousine debacle? This was a stupid, stupid, error which any PR man worth his salt would have nipped in the bud.
@ Chris Paul
So, define 'war' and define 'military action' for us. We can then maybe have a sensible debate about this, rather than simply accepting your dissimulations.
Chris Paul
My, my you lefties do have a very short memory. Have you forgotten about Afghanistan already - no wonder our troops think that no one at home gives a stuff about them.
And what about Kosovo, another completely unnecessary use of the British armed forces by Blair the socialist warmonger.
John Rentoul is a leading apologist for Blairism. He is the last man one would expect objective reporting of the Conservative party from
As a sympathetic voter - but not a party member - I would rather like some, erm, honesty about what a Tory government might actually do!
Instead it seems Cameron is a puppet to be fought over by these two no doubt highly attractive people.
I have to say I don't see "we're far too highly taxed and we won't do much about it" as a n especially inspiring message.
But why couldn't Dave see the sense of not going to Rwanda?Everyone else could see the stupidity of the visit-why not Dave?
He lacks judgement and that is dangerous in a potential PM.
I thought it was right for Cameron to go to Rwanda. That trip meant more than paddling about in his wellies looking for a cheap and nasty photo op! DC was away for one day and two nights. Storm in a teacup.
Steve Hilton managed to get DC to decontaminate 'the brand'. Is Coulson going to wreck all that hard work?
Mr. Dale, you are starting to sound as frustrated as the rest of us!
Rash judgements?
Good news for the Tories - after more than a decade in opposition, they are hopeful that they may have an equal vote share with Labour according to opinion polls. And that's the GOOD news?
BTW, Labour may have taken us into Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter of which involves NATO treaty obligations of mutual defence, which was invoked post-9/11), but the Tories backed the cause at the time and no serious observer could suggest that a Tory PM would have done anything differently.
Labour did indeed put the troops onto the streets of Northern Ireland, with the task of protecting the Catholic minority, but we were already embroiled in that little mess, as NI remains part of our country. I will applaud the oft-forgotten role of John Major in getting the peace process off the ground during the 90s, a process continued and maintained by Labour.
Sierra Leone was a successful military intervention and demonstrates that popular local support is essential in restoring civil society.
Kosovo was a European intervention with US assistance, again under a NATO banner.
Finally, the Rwanda jaunt was a mistake. Although Dave was only away for a few hours, the political damage caused far outweighed any positive coverage. The story wasn't with Cameron and his people in Rwanda, all eyes were on England and that's where he should have been.
Why does no-one in the Tory party attack the likes of Oona King for the self serving little no-talent publicist that she is.
All 'lost in the beauty'?
I understand that he is - also friends Oona and Gisela.
Ouch -- wasn't he a close supporter of a dead person?
His lawyers won't let you go there.
Although, apparently, according to Oona, he was enamoured of Mirren sans skirt.
Each to their own - re apparel and wearer.
Post a Comment