thetorydiary

Jonathan has already reported on David Cameron's speech in which he announced a tax on banks.

Forgive me for blogging on it again but I think Cameron may have found his big message. The speech was entitled 'Taking on vested interests'. It could have been called 'against the big interests' or 'a government for the little guy'.

The new Tory message against the unions and in favour of a bank bailout were the headline sections but David Cameron said (very fairly) that his whole leadership had been characterised by taking on vested interests...

IN POLITICS: "Scrapping Parliamentary subsidies. Cutting the number of MPs. Cutting the number of ministerial cars. Cutting and freezing ministerial pay. Full transparency over expenses. Closing the final salary pension scheme. It wasn’t easy, but it was necessary – because this way Parliament can start to look the British public in the eye and say ‘we’re here to serve you, not ourselves’."

THROUGHOUT GOVERNMENT: "I said to the quango chiefs, the town halls, the government departments... all the officials that for too long have jealously guarded their budgets... that a Conservative government would bring transparency to everything they do. Publishing every item of central government spending over £25,000 and every item of local council spending over £500. Publishing every public sector salary over £150,000 and every town hall salary over £60,000. Cutting the number of quangos. It wasn’t easy, but it was necessary – because if we open up the whole process of government we’ll make it accountable to the people it serves."

AGAINST BIG BUSINESS: "I have had battles with entrenched interests, including those in the corporate sector. Opposing the third runway at Heathrow. A right for every parent to request flexible working. Changing advertising rules to stop the premature sexualisation of children. Taxing banks to fund free financial advice. It wasn’t easy, but it was necessary – and today I think big business knows it will be criticised when it ducks out of its social responsibilities if we’re elected to government."

The Tory leader could also have mentioned his commitment to cut big media down to size by ending the ways in which the BBC, for example, tramples on start up broadcasters. He promises to take on the teacher unions and the educational establishment by delivering Michael Gove's schools revolution.

I like this message. It captures the spirit of our age.  I commissioned the drawing on the right to illustrate the role of the internet in this 'age of Davids'.

The anti-big thing can go too far - in, for example, a war against supermarkets but after experimenting with lots of narratives... the heir to Blair; honesty versus dishonesty; progressive conservatism; Conservative government costs you less etc etc... this anti-establishment message might be a winner. The key thing is Cameron must stick at a big message soon.

Tim Montgomerie

"Cameron is a politician who quells, smooths, conflates, reassures."

So writes Michael Wolff within a new profile of David Cameron in Vanity Fair magazine.

I've always liked pieces about our political scene written for foreign journals. They tend to cut through the daily noise and paint a big picture, bird's eye view. The whole piece is worth reading (and not just for the quote that has got Ed Vaizey into trouble, again) but its most noteworthy conclusion is the idea that Cameron has created a detoxified and reassuring conservatism. Not a surprise, perhaps, but Wolff writes:

"Cameron “alchemized a position of more or less glutinous consensus,” says Boris Johnson, whose own relationship with Cameron tiptoes a fine line between admiration for his evident electability and doubtfulness about his intellectual bona fides. It is, as well, a bit chilling. The Cameron position isn’t about just consensus but about something more mystical, allowing everybody to hear what they want. Having systematically removed most of the overt points of contention—immigration, Iraq, Europe—the Cameron Conservatives then replaced them with a series of almost totemic notions of agreement."

In his Times column, Daniel Finklelstein addresses the same theme, reflecting on what Team Cameron set out to achieve:

"These Tories, the message was intended to say, are modern, energetic, determined, tolerant, they listen, they are at ease with today’s Britain. They understand that people are fed up with knockabout politics as usual. They support public services, particularly the NHS, they will protect the low-paid and they understand that, as Mr Cameron put it early on, “we’re all in this together”."

We are about to find out if this creation of a reassuring Toryism will be enough to deliver victory. It was working perfectly while Brand Brown was nosediving. Now that Mandelson, Campbell, Whelan and Alexander are running a half-decent campaign it is no longer clear that a reassuring narrative is enough. Every day PPCs and party members tell me that voters don't know what the Tories stand for (the party is still failing to do basic things like post its six key pledges on the party's homepage).

I agree with Danny Finkelstein that brand is important but I wonder if our brand should have been the radical, rescue party rather than the reassurance party? The tools to be the rescue party are all there. Under David Cameron the party has developed very good (and transformational) policies on banking regulation, immigration, education, social justice and policing, in particular. In recent weeks there have been more hints that the party is flirting with showing more of its radical character. What do voters want at the moment? A party that will avoid risky reforms or a party that will fix things? The party leader that answers that question correctly will be the one that wins. I have to say I'm not sure but my gut would be with rescue rather than reassurance. My gut says the country wants a strong leader rather than a comforting leader.

Tim Montgomerie

I have just spoken to someone who is party member, albeit not hugely politically active, who liked what she heard when she watched David Cameron's speech this afternoon.

"I just wish he could have announced all those policies a couple of months ago," she lamented, leaving me to point out that there were absolutely no new policies announced in today's speech.

There's a salutary lesson in this tale: it's one thing to announce policies; it's another for them to get through to the vast majority of voters.

Tim suggested in his excellent ten point plan on Friday that the party needed to stop announcing new policies and focus on the best ones we already have. That's the way to ensure that the messages get through - and my one-person focus group certainly suggests that to be the case.

Jonathan Isaby

Yesterday ConservativeHome set out a ten point plan to get the Tory campaign back on track. There are overnight signs that the Conservatives are now doing the right things and are close to finalising a disciplined campaign message. The Times reports that "after a period of drift, [the Tory leadership] has come to a settled strategy." Writing for the same newspaper, George Osborne openly announces a change of tactics:

"Since the new year, we are the party that has been setting out the new policy ideas that will change Britain. Perhaps that has made it too easy for the Labour Party simply to attack us while escaping scrutiny itself. That will now change. We will continue to set out our own positive ideas, but we will also ask searching questions about Mr Brown’s record and whether he has anything new to offer. That is the spotlight Labour is desperate to avoid. It won’t be able to now."

The ConHome plan called for daily reminders of Labour failures and that's what David Cameron will begin with his speech on Sunday. Speaking without notes the Tory leader will blast Labour's record. I only hope all personal attacks on Brown are avoided. Attacks on Brown's character might easily backfire and voters may, ridiculously, see Cameron as the bully.

Our plan called for a clarification of the economic message. In The Telegraph, Charles Moore reports that "the shadow Cabinet was asked to approve a single sheet of paper which tried to crystallise what the Tories think about the economy, and how they relate it to everything else they are trying to do." I look forward to reading that.

Our plan urged that the party stop announcing new policies and focus on the best ones that we do have. There'll be no new policy announcements this weekend and instead the Tories launched six pledges (almost a pledge card) summarising existing policy commitments. I blogged about them last night. They're good.

We also suggested that we define the choice for voters. The election will be framed by CCHQ as five more years of Gordon Brown or change under the Conservatives. The Independent's Andrew Grice writes that "another five years of Gordon Brown is a line we will hear ad nauseam from now on."

Last night in Brighton senior members of Team Cameron were admitting to me that they had had a bad few weeks. They now think they have clarified the campaign message and are confident that the bumpiness is over.  By midweek, the daily YouGov tracker will tell us if it is.

Tim Montgomerie

...because I haven't heard a peep from them (here it is btw in case you missed it). A dozen MPs and as many candidates have sent positive messages, however. Joanne Cash being the exception, thinking we have to choose between talking about immigration and the economy. That, to me, is a false choice. We can't have too many messages but immigration should be one of our top campaign themes.

James Forsyth at The Spectator agrees: "It was a strategic mistake in 2005 to talk about immigration so much but it would be an equally large mistake not to talk about it at all this time round. I also think that ‘detoxifying the brand’ has worked sufficiently for it to be easier for the Tories to get a hearing when they talk about this topic. However, the problem is that the Tories can’t start talking about immigration now; it would look like a panic response to the polls. But as soon as the Tory numbers go up and again, as I expect they will, they should take the opportunity to do a big speech on it. Andy Coulson’s instinct that Sayeeda Warsi is the best messenger for the Tories on this subject is sound."

Here is some other reax from the media:

The Times: "Grassroots members surveyed by the ConservativeHome website, however, have called for the party to move to the right. A survey of 2,352 members this week found that more than eight out of ten believed that promising to cut net immigration would appeal to floating voters... Two thirds of Tory members surveyed by ConservativeHome do not want Mr Osborne to front the campaign. While they want Mr Cameron to be front and centre, they would prefer that he was surrounded by William Hague, Boris Johnson and Ken Clarke. Mr Osborne is marginally less popular as a public face of the campaign than John Major, the former Prime Minister. In the survey, the grassroots members overwhelmingly agreed that they should criticise Lib Dems holding marginal seats for possibly keeping Labour in power."

London Evening Standard: "An open call for a campaign rethink was launched by the activists' website ConservativeHome, which issued a 10-point list of themes that had been tested on the doorstep by candidates. The list was headed by “clarify the economic message” because the official lines to take from Mr Osborne's office were bombing on the doorstep. Next came “warn of the danger of a hung Parliament” and “deploy the party's very sensible message on immigration”. Mr Cameron's aides said he would use his speech to the spring conference to “take the battle to Labour”."

Janet Daley: "Over at ConservativeHome, Tim Montgomerie gives David Cameron some excellent advice about how to deal with the present malaise... These endless dollops of counsel under which CCHQ must be staggering are divided roughly into two types: those (like Tim’s) urging a more straightforward and focused campaign because they sincerely want the Tories to win, and those from Left-liberals who pretend that they are seriously considering supporting the Conservatives which advise even more of the fluff that has caused so much trouble already (ie “Cameron must convince the country that his party has really changed”.) I sincerely hope that the leadership team can tell the difference between those who have the party’s best interests at heart and those who want to bury it forever for urging it to make itself even more apologetic and self-doubting."

Iain Martin: "Tim Montgomerie has penned a very astute set of recommendations aimed at the Tory leadership ahead of its spring conference in Brighton this weekend. How should they fix their struggling campaign and win the election? Don’t panic, be much clearer and more straightforward and then get properly stuck in to Labour, he advises. If they are awake at CCHQ they would be wise to digest every word of Tim’s."

Tim Montgomerie