Labour is congratulating itself on a show of unity at its conference, but even so events there might have been choreographed by David Cameron. When Labour delegates set out for Manchester it seemed clear that Tony Blair would leave office by May. After the prime minister’s speech his aides reopened the painful timing issue by hinting he could linger until summer.
An American pollster confirmed what delegates knew in their hearts, that voters see Gordon Brown as boring, dour, Scottish and slippery. The conference hoped his speech would prove he could be charismatic but it fell short of expectations. Cherie Blair spotlighted Brown’s insincerity, which in any case shone from his performance. The next day Blair’s oration put him in a league above Brown. To cap it all John Reid hinted that he would contest the leadership on a populist right-wing ticket.
Labour may continue its infighting for another nine months or so, even assuming that the fratricidal genie can be coaxed back into the bottle when the new leader takes over. Brown is still overwhelmingly likely to win but Blair looks determined to hang on for as long as possible in the hope that something — anything — can stop him. A long campaign will damage Brown and increase doubts about him. If he makes it to No 10, from his first day Labour will wonder whether it made the wrong choice.
Nothing could be better for Cameron. Blair would have been much harder to beat, particularly by a Tory leader modelled so closely on him. Reid or even Alan Johnson might do better against Cameron if only because they are newer than Brown. Alan Milburn would be a difficult opponent because he is bursting with energy and new ideas.
For Cameron the dream ticket is Brown, arriving in power after his personality “flaws and shortcomings” (to quote Peter Mandelson) have been picked over at least until the summer, a new prime minister of whom the public is already weary and wary.
Cameron should therefore work on three themes. First, if Brown’s colleagues are so worried about him, the public should be truly alarmed. Second, it is intolerable to have a prime minister from a Scottish seat presiding over legislation at Westminster that affects England but rarely Scotland. Third, Brown has presided over the collapse of Britain’s pensions. Thanks to him, for the majority retirement will bring poverty and means testing. That undermines his Treasury record. Has Labour really been good for “the many”?
Cameron needs to do almost nothing else. He must not distract attention from Labour’s strife. The coming months are no time for policy initiatives. Brown has made life easier for him with a surprisingly vague speech. It is scarcely reasonable to ask Cameron to be specific years before he might be prime minister, when Brown is so nebulous just months before taking power.
At the Tory conference this week Cameron will easily marginalise those who want him to commit the party to tax cuts. As usual, he is lucky in his opponents. For years John Redwood and Edward Leigh have borne the right-wing standard. It and they are looking tattered. Michael Forsyth is formidable but now merely a peer.
A year ago the Conservatives were on course to choose David Davis as their leader and annihilation as their destiny. Without Cameron’s win we might now be debating whether the Tories could hold second place against the Liberal Democrats, rather than whether they can beat Labour.
Blair’s effortless triumph over Brown at the conference was by proxy a victory for Cameron too. There is a theory — call it wishful thinking — shared by Brownites and dissident Tory rightwingers that charisma is overrated and, after Blair, devalued. Dream on.
Blair electrified his party, which largely loathes him, and the media, which succumbed despite knowing his every trick. The quality that great politicians possess is not so much charm as electricity, a definition that helps explain the Thatcher phenomenon too. Cameron has acquired it after just four years and Gordon has not attained it after 23.
Cameron has been mocked for cycling and hugging huskies. But he goes to Bournemouth narrowly ahead in the polls for what should be the Tories’ most cheerful gathering for 20 years. He has only to make an electrifying speech. I say “only” of a thing that just one or two politicians in any generation can achieve, yet the betting is that Cameron will succeed.
He is also quietly getting his way with changing the party. His derided A-list of parliamentary candidates, with its quota of ethnic minorities and women, is working. Last week I put four of them through a tough interview before a large audience gathered to choose the Tory candidate for Battersea, a seat that the Tories will probably win. Those finalists were two non-white men and two women.
The standard was high. Any one of them would have done fine on the BBC’s Question Time. They had good track records of charitable work. When asked what Cameron’s campaign themes should be, none suggested taxes, Europe or immigration. A man in the audience wanted to know whether they would reverse the laws that allow gay couples to adopt children. They refused him and talked warmly about their gay friends.
The Tory machine is firmly under Cameron’s control and has embarked enthusiastically on a mission to eradicate old Tory stereotypes. Potential candidates and their selectors are using a new vocabulary. The Conservative intake at the next election will look and sound different and better. When I asked one candidate what he would like television viewers to think of him, he replied: “A real person.” Spot on.
The Conservatives allowed in the media to report on the selection meeting. Journalists point out that only 30% of winnable seats that have selected so far have chosen women, well short of the leader’s target of half and half. But the most cynical reporter could see that change is under way. When in his early days as opposition leader Blair convinced the media that he was serious about transforming Labour, they flocked to his support. Cameron has moved close to that position now.
All of that has been more important than inventing policies. Events at Manchester last week confirmed that Cameron has been sensible to hold fire, because Labour policy is itself in flux. By contrast with Brown’s blandness, Blair revealed his so-called 39 steps for Labour’s future programme. They move Blair still further to the right, with proposals for more private money and leadership in hospitals and schools, extra prisons and new law and order measures.
We do not know how Brown will react to that agenda before and after he takes over. If he adopts Blair’s ideas, the middle ground of politics will shift markedly to the right, easing Cameron’s problems with old school backbenchers. But if Brown seeks to define himself by rejecting parts of Blair’s programme, he will surrender ideas and centrist territory to Cameron. Labour could scarcely denounce those policies as right-wing, knowing Blair had devised them. Cameron also needs time to think about how to counter Reid’s agenda. The home secretary’s ranting assaults on our civil liberties are sickening, but go down well with focus groups.
As Brown has shown in recent years, there is political skill in avoiding the limelight. The Tory leader must briefly hog it for his speech on Wednesday, and with luck he will reignite the Cameron-mania that gripped the media a year ago. But after that he should seek the shadows. Labour’s self-destructive cabaret has months to run and it would be a pity if people were looking in the wrong direction.
michael.portillo@sunday-times.co.uk
