David Cameron’s Leader’s Speech 2007
- Home page
- See my prediction on a November election: Will Brown or Won’t He?
- About David Cameron’s Speech to Conference, 3rd Oct, 2007
- Watch David Cameron’s Speech here
- Opinion Poll Watch – updated
Comment at end
8th October, 2007
DEJA VU – ALL OVER AGAIN!
This is fun. Read this article by Martin Kettle, without looking at the date – hard to do, I know. But I started reading it without clocking the date fully. Only when I was well into a few paragraphs did I realise we were in the wrong year.
So, much had changed THEN in the Tory party, when Cameron wowed ’em with his speech. Then things slipped a bit. And suddenly, much has changed again. Wonder if there will be another slip before the 2009 conference season, or the next election, whichever comes first?
“There’s mony a slip …”
Plenty of time, plenty of time.
Addendum to the below:
I notice I said below that I thought David Cameron’s 2007 conference speech would make little difference to Brown’s election decision. Looks like I was wrong. Although, then again, it wasn’t the speech that changed Brown’s mind, but the way the speech was received by those polled in the marginals. So I suppose I wasn’t completely wrong.
It’s not what you say, it’s the way that you say it ;0)
I know, I know. I’m a loss to politics.
3rd October, 2007
CAMERON SAYS “Britain Will Win”
As someone who feels disenfranchised, because I feel leaders are important, and we’ve just lost the best one we had, I’ve just watched David Cameron.
He spoke well, but in the end – well – no, sorry. Despite the fact that he comes over as a nice man, a good man, and STILL reminds me hugely of Tony Blair (see video here), I don’t think it will impact much on Brown’s decision on election timing. And on its strength alone he will not yet win the election if it is called any time soon.
You have to give it to him, he coped very well for over an hour without notes. He tried to let us see how well grounded he is. But, but … there was very little he said that
Brown, er Blair couldn’t have said.
Apart from the call for a referendum on the EU “constitution” – and let’s be blunt about it – if the Tories had agreed to the amendments as did Tony Blair, they would NOT be calling for a referendum. But apart from that there really wasn’t all that much that differentiated him from Brown; not enough anyway for enough of the electorate to get their teeth into.
He’s going to make the police’s job less target and paper bound so that they can go back to catching criminals. Ye-e-es. Good. And he’s going to give headteachers the right to be rid of badly behaved children, with no recourse to an appeals panel. Ye-e-es. Good again. He’s more in favour of Blair’s Academy Schools than is Brown. Ye-e-es, probably. And he was proud to support Blair’s nuclear power vote, which highlighted where many in today’s Blairless Labour party still stand. Good for Cameron … bad for Brown.
Over terrorism – well, at least he said he’d ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir – which is more than Brown has said. You will recall that when Blair wanted to ban it after 7/7 he was ‘advised’ against. WRONG advice. Wonder if the then MI5 Chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller gave Blair any advice then? Or perhaps the recent (?) Tory recruit Dame Pauline Neville Jones, former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, seated on the platform during Cameron’s speech did.
I wonder if DC/PM would really do better than GB/PM whose excuse was that he’d only been “in the job 5 ” … (er 7 actually) days when Cameron mentioned banning HuT in Brown’s first PMQs as PM? (Where he’d been for the last ten years or even when Blair’s cabinet was discussing it, heaven only knows! Presumably dreaming about his forthcoming job!)On Iraq, Cameron was probably more generous to Brown that he need have been. And he made it clear that Afghanistan was his priority in the region.
So, will the polls show any great movement towards David Cameron? Well, I think they might, given a fair press coverage (!) He should claw back another 4 or 5 points from this, which might just give Brown pause for thought. After all, why risk a hung parliament when there is no need?
Cameron was not dogmatic – and most of us booted dogma out with Lady T.
He did not attack Labour mercilessly, and I don’t think he even mentioned the Lib Dems.
He wrapped himself in the cloak … I almost wrote ‘shroud’ – [definitely still mourning Blair here] – of generosity of spirit and straightforward Britishness without having to tell us that all the time.
But, and I suppose there are only so many phrases available … but why oh why did I keep hearing Blair’s voice behind so many of Cameron’s phrases and thoughts? Except, of course, Blair did it better.
Sorry, Mr Cameron – you haven’t yet won it – but I think you have moved some of the voters over to your side, if that’s any consolation. And that should include, almost definitely, with your promises of greater immigration controls, those waverers in the Kentish seats. And those are exactly the ones that Brown MUST win to retain power.
Over to you GB/PM.
5 October, 2006
Is David Cameron REALLY Tony Blair?
I’m beginning to wonder. You never see them together, apart from at Prime Minister’s Questions – and the reflective smoke and mirrors trick works here regularly. Click on the video arrow to see what I mean.
OK, David Cameron gave quite a reasonable speech. Granted it was based on the kind of speech and delivery that his hero the PM has perfected, and Mr Cameron seems like a decent human being. But it left me confused. Could this be the first example of on-the-fly body and soul transfer? A kind of political splicing?
In this day and age when all parties cross-fertilise their policy ideas, this “image” thing takes on even greater significance. They’re all chasing the same rainbows such as social cohesion, global warming, containing terrorism, and rightly so. David Cameron knows he doesn’t have to win people over with too much policy at the moment, which is just as well! He only needs to paint a kind of background wash of what he and his New Liberal Conservatives are all about. (How’s that for pinching a bit of all the parties’ names? I’m not sure if he mentioned all three words together, to be fair, but we got that message nonetheless.) He did mention a few unmentionables to the Tory faithful and for that he should be applauded. Don’t know what they’ll make of it in the constituencies though. They would never have had Michael Portillo (who is someone I have quite taken to since he got out of politics) for all the reasons hinted at by nice Mr Cameron today.
Still, he mentioned Tony Blair’s name several times. Haven’t counted how many, but I expect someone has; please let me know if you know. I think a lot of people are still to be persuaded that it’s worth getting rid of the real article for the cloned one though.