Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

When politicians really are pants...

A great gift for those who still hold the memory of Maggie dear in their hearts.

Now they can keep her close to more private parts of the anatomy.

Political pants offers a selection of underwear emblazoned with your favourite politicos. Prices fluctuate with public opinion. This week, Brown's a mere £9 while Cameron's riding high at £11. Not too high, we hope.

Alice Fishburn

It's all about the light blue tie

What is it about light blue ties?

Gordon Brown wore one on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th of October.

On the other two days, October 3rd and 7th, David Cameron wore one.

Never, interestingly, did their neckwear coincide.

Hugo Rifkind sheds some light on this mystery in a recent observation about George Bush:

His work with Iraq and the US economy may have been sketchy, but George Bush scored a lasting triumph with his neckwear. He has, apparently, pioneered the wearing of light blue ties, a trend copied by both Barak Obama and John McCain. "It really lightens up a man's face, and he comes across as more decisive, but in a human sort of way," says the American author Donna Brazile..

Perhaps this is where the inspiration comes from?

Tim Rice

How Cameron scores on the über-moderniser test

On Wednesday last week I declared myself an über-moderniser and set David Cameron some tests for his speech.

With the conference finished here's how I think they did against the principles I set out:

That optimism triumphs over pessimism. Both Cameron and Osborne's speeches were more optimistic than some that were made earlier in the summer, but this remains an area where a strategic choice is required. Fringe meetings were still full of incredibly gloomy, almost apocalyptic talk about the state of society.

When you talk about them, voters learn about you. Only the most grudging über-moderniser could fault Cameron's speech on the tone of his argument with the Government. Arguing that Labour means well and that the Tories therefore have to explain clearly why the Government has fallen short was just right. Other Conservatives were less good but this conference was definitely better than in previous years.

That to win, Tories must appeal to their core vote. The inheritance tax proposal was aimed squarely at the core vote, which I define as the upwardly mobile middle classes. It was a risk, but after a lot of opinion research they got the proposal right. I am less convinced about the marriage idea. Intellectually I worry about a tax break and politically I don't think it's a winner with women.

That brand decontamination comes before everything. I think Cameron did well in his speech on this. The passage about immigration, in particular, was well structured. The European section was too early in the speech but didn't drown it out.

That the danger is having too much policy, not too little. On the whole, the party preferred directional statements to micropolicy and I was pleased to see that. There were one or two moments, though when, for instance, a sweeping, but impractical sounding, benefits policy appeared out of nowhere, when I was a little concerned. I think also that NHS policy is less coherent than education policy.

That you must show as well as tell. I was worried about this. I suppose it was inevitable that less should be made of party reform at a pre-election conference, but it does mean Cameron would fight an election simply asserting that he is strong and modern. Why should voters believe that? So during a campaign he'll have to find innovative ways of demonstrating it. Not easy.

On the whole?

Cameron's speech showed he is pretty remarkable and that he gets it, or at least most of it. But the Party still has a long way to go.

The sleep test

I wish there had been a proper academic study, but in the absence of one I'll make an untested assertion. There is an inverse relationship between how late the leader's team finish his speech and its quality.

Last year David Cameron's speech wasn't finished until just before he gave it. And you could tell.

Good speech writing is partly about creativity but editing and polishing make a huge difference. If you run out of time (personal example William Hague, 1998) you can't do that vital work.

The earliest sign that this year may be better? Steve Hilton was to be found at a party at 10pm, calmly sipping a soft drink.

Twofer with Tim Montgomerie... what next for David Cameron?

Over on ConservativeHome, Tim Montgomerie has been hosting a debate on what David Cameron should do next. Using Comment Central's new Twofer technology I called him this morning to talk about it.

Five great political honeymoons

Honeymoons are hilarious.

Political honeymoons I mean.

The smallest, often banal, act is portrayed as an example of great statesmanship. Gordon Brown was right to return from his holiday, because the current atmosphere guaranteed that it would be portrayed as strong leadership. But it's hardly the first time a leader has enjoyed such a breathing space.

Here are five great honeymoons:

1. John Major eats chips! The decision of the new Prime Minister to dine in a Happy Eater restaurant was regarded as an indication that here was a man of the people. Within a couple of years the same meal was being satirised on Spitting Image and taken as an indication that the man had no style.

2. David Cameron can ride a bicycle! The miraculous ability of the new Tory leader to travel on a bike without wobbling was seen as an indication that Conservative revival might be possible. Look everyone, no hands. The man can pedal. The Tories are saved.

3. Tony Blair meets Noel Gallagher! It should never be forgotten that there was a period in which Cool Britannia was taken seriously. It was thought, well, cool. And an electoral asset. Now it is impossible to talk about it without people laughing.

4. George Bush is kinder and gentler! When the current President's father talked of a kinder America his popularity soared. He was regarded as so unbeatable that leading Democrats shied away from standing against him - they thought they would get crushed. By the time the election came round it was Bush who was crushed. And part of his problem was that voters thought him a wimp.

5. Bill Clinton delivers his inaugural address! A fresh young President speaks and the nation is ready for something new. But within moments of taking office, the honeymoon is over. The decision, later partially reversed, to allow gays to join the military became public within days of the inaugural and that was it for the Clinton honeymoon. It was regarded as a great political mistake but its effects did not last - he still won in a walk next time, though.

Underestimated?

Paul Linford in the Derbyshire Telegraph makes a remark that has cropped up time and again in comment on the Tories:

Mr Cameron's big strategic mistake over the past month was not to have gone to Rwanda, nor even the way he fought Ealing Southall - but to have seriously underestimated Mr Brown.

Cue nodding of heads.

But I have a problem with this observation.

I agree that the Cameron team (in common with most commentators, incidentally) underestimated Brown. But by how much? Probably by about the same distance as Mr Brown is currently being overestimated.

What I am struggling with is the common assertion that this was a strategic error. Why would correctly estimating Gordon Brown have made any difference to strategy? What would the Tories have done differently if they had correctly estimated Gordon Brown?

Gould's unmissable advice

A Philip Gould memo to Gordon Brown, written before he took over, has surfaced in the Daily Mirror.

It is compulsory reading.

Though it isn't the memo's intent, one of the clear messages is just how good... Lord Gould is. 

If it is true (and I think it is) that he isn't really in the Brown inner circle, then this is a big mistake.

The Mirror takes it as read that what Gould says, Brown is doing. But, even allowing for their desire to big up their scoop, this is overstating the importance of the memo. 

Why, then, do I regard it as compulsory reading? Because of its insights. Leave aside his argument for an early election (with which I concur), and instead look at this:

There is no doubt that the political landscape is changing: Crime, terror, immigration and so on are now the dominant issues.

Underpinning these concerns is a growing sense of the power of events beyond our control - globalised economies, international terror, community disintegration and so on.

The public are increasingly aware of the forces of change that politicians find hard to affect.

In turn people feel hard-working families get a raw deal while the undeserving get disproportionate benefits and unfair access to services and housing.

This leads to an agenda that is strikingly different from a decade ago.

However, public services and the economy are still important, about equal and just below security. But there has been a change in balance. People clearly feel insecure, uncertain and sometimes confused.

I was slightly surprised by this. I have always harboured doubts about David Cameron's talk of "a broken society", wondering if he wouldn't be better sticking with optimism on the economy and reform of public services.

But if Gould is right (and I put a great deal of faith in him) then maybe the "broken society" theme might have more play for the Tories than I thought.

That having been said, I think Cameron is still a long way away from linking his social responsibility ideas to the everyday concerns about security.

And, again if Gould is right, he will face the daunting prospect of defeating Brown on the PM's favoured turf - the test of leadership strength.

Get on board, stay on board

Fraser Nelson's piece in this week's Spectator should be a set text for all those Tories who are prone to mutiny.

Fraser wonders if, god forbid, David Cameron were to be hit by a bus, who would replace him? The moral of the story is simple:

The more Tories ponder the alternatives, the clearer it becomes that there is no better option than the incumbent. Strikingly, no one I spoke to disputes this. One shadow Cabinet member told me that, should Mr Cameron be run over by a bus, ‘I’d kill the bus driver.’

Murad Ahmed

Feeling under the weather

Ah, so we can expect more of these then.

And it wasn't that long ago that cartoons like this were appearing you know...

A pattern is emerging

This seems to be happening a lot lately.

Brown steals a good idea from the Tories. But Brown actually has the power to implement it. Cameron loses more political ammunition. And the conservative press can't help but be impressed with the PM.

Should we start to expect more Peter Brookes cartoons like the one above?

Cameron's not for turning

The front of today’s Daily Mail lays into David Cameron for not staying with his flood-stricken constituents in Witney, instead going ahead with a trip to visit some Rwandans who didn’t even vote for him. Matthew d’Ancona thinks that, actually, Cameron should be admired for sticking to his guns and going to Africa.

But the critics are many – how dare he go for a photoshoot in Africa to highlight his caring side when he should stay at home to, er, do what exactly? Partake in a caring photoshoot in Witney instead? Because he already did that on Sunday, in case no one noticed. How would a welly-booted Cameron, armed with a bucket and small-talk, help anyone exactly? Or does he possess special sea rescue skills that the Daily Mail has yet to inform us about?

Cameron and the Conservatives: Polls apart

The indispensible UK Polling Report site summarises a new Channel 4 poll:

Respondents were asked to rate politicans and parties on a scale of “very left-wing”, “fairly left-wing”, “slightly left of centre”, “centre”, “slightly right of centre”, “fairly right-wing” and “very right-wing”, but YouGov have converted into a numerical scale so we can get average results for each politician/party.

The average respondent puts themself at +1, so almost bang on centre. David Cameron is at +33 (the score YouGov gave to “slightly right of centre”), marginally more centrist than last year when he scored +35 and +34 and significantly more centrist than his predecessor Michael Howard was in 2005 (+53).

However, despite Cameron being more centrist, he has barely shifted perceptions of the Conservative party as a whole, who have an average score of +52, compared to +50 and +53 last year. Sadly YouGov didn’t ask the question about the party in April 2005, but still being seen as just as right-wing as Michael Howard was doesn’t suggest perceptions of the Conservative party beyond Cameron himself have moved to the centre!

While perceptions of Cameron and the Conservatives have remained static since last year, views of Gordon Brown and Labour have shifted... or more to the point, they have swapped places. In February 2006, the Labour party as a whole scored an average of -27 on the scale, with Gordon Brown seen as somewhat more centrist at -21.

In September 2006 perceptions of Brown and the Labour Party in general were almost identical. The latest figures show Labour on an average of -22, but Brown on -26. Strangely enough, Brown is now seen as more left-wing than the Labour Party in general are.

The Conservative Party still has a lot of work to do.

How useful is the word 'Islamist'?

Both Melanie Phillips and Stephen Pollard are incensed at David Cameron's suggestion that the word "Islamist" should not be used to describe Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. Their argument is that Cameron is denying the ideological basis of the terrorist activity - something that is very dangerous.

Or at least it would be, if that is what Cameron was doing.

Considering that about two and a half people in the country agree with Stephen, Melanie and me about the War on Terror, I prefer to build alliances rather than trying to identify traitors.

This is what Cameron actually said:

We do need greater understanding of the true nature of the terrorist threat. There's too much complacency about it among non-Muslims, and too much denial of it in the Muslim community. But our efforts are not helped by lazy use of language. Indeed, by using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a 'good Muslim', you have to support their evil campaign.

I have used the term Islamist until now, but is worth at least debating whether using the term is a good idea.

In a fascinating post, Melanie writes about Ed Husain's new book The Islamist. This book shows how his dangerous radicalism grew from small increments in his fundamentalism. At the earliest possible stage - the handing out of a book by a teacher - no distinction was made between dangerous literature and mainstream Muslim thinking.

Perhaps using an alternative phrase to Islamism would help distinguish between the radicals and the rest of Islam. I certainly think this is worth discussing temperately, rather than lambasting anyone for making the suggestion.

But me? I'll go on using Islamism until I can find a better term. It is vital to understand the ideological basis of the terrorist action and telling that Mr Cameron, by his own admission, hasn't got an alternative suggestion.

A point on Peter Hitchens

Planning to watch Peter Hitchens's programme on David Cameron tonight? You my wish to keep this in mind.

David Cameron's budget announcement

David Cameron's Budget reply contained an interesting political point. The Tory leadership has obviously decided how to deal with the spending settlement - embrace it.

Cameron derided Brown as having come round to the idea of sharing the proceeds of growth. This was framed as a taunt, and made rather a good joke. It was, in fact, the announcement of a profoundly important political decision.

In the last two elections the central feature of the Tory manifesto was a spending path lower than Labour's. Cameron has now signalled as clearly as possible that this will not figure in the next election.

Instead the Tories will treat the new Brown figures as Tory figures, offer to match them and then make lower taxes a medium term aspiration.

Cameron's inner circle

The Guardian's Andy Beckett has done a pretty good job profiling the Cameron inner circle. Correctly identifies the centrality of George Osborne. Not perfect - dismissive about David Willetts instead of noting his big intellectual contribution to the modernisers, underestimates the talent of people like Ed Llewllyn - but adds a lot that you may not know.

Worth reading.

David Cameron and your inner Philosophical Majoritarian

Whether or not ICM's poll this morning is accurate, David Cameron's Conservatives will gain greatly from it. 

Why? Because there is a bit of the Philosophical Majoritarian in all of us.

James Suroweicki argued in favour of trusting the Wisdom of Crowds in his highly influential book. On the Overcoming Bias website Hal Finney takes this argument one step further. He says that since majorities are more often more nearly right than your independent judgment, you should start with joining the majority and only depart from it with good reason.

This is not the revolutionary approach he thinks it is. Most of us basically do this already. Cameron's poll lead makes people more likely to vote Conservative, reassured by the presence of others.

This doesn't make it a logical thing to do, however. Philosophical Majoritarianism is self-defeating. The wisdom of crowds results from each member exercising independent judgment.

A Cameron bandwagon may be beginning and a powerful thing it will be.

(UPDATE: Chris Dillow has written an interesting post on this)

Spot the difference

In "Won't Get Fooled Again", The Who sing of how the "parting on the left becomes the parting on the right".

Times cartoonist Peter Brookes has noticed that Cameron's parting on the right has become a parting on the left. It's a pleasure. All part of the Comment Central service.

The left picture shows Cameron as he was until early this month. On the right, Cameron yesterday.

(UPDATE: Extensive picture research suggests that the change took place between Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday 7th March and 11.58am on Thursday 8th March)

The real people who run the world

The moment the cannabis story broke it was obvious it would be a problem. The reminder that David Cameron went to Eton that is.

But the treatment of this story by bloggers and journalists has amused me. Because while they have gone on and on about the conspiracy of toffs running the world, they have proved that politics and the media is in fact dominated by an entirely different little gang.

Members of the ChipOx club are everywhere. Who are they? Chippy people who went to Oxford, had an argument with a drunk aristocrat in the Balliol bar and supported the wrong candidate for Chief Breadstick in Michaelmas term.

Years later, they are still struggling to get over the humiliation.

The ChipOx Club believes that their rows with the Bullingdon Club, which culminated in a memorable food fight in the Oxford High Street KFC (Boris Johnson, they recall, throw a salsa Zinger) indicate that the Conservative modernisers would close down the health service.

The rest of us are simply bemused.

Ordinary people don't exist

The Guardian is doing its bit to stoke up class envy. Last week Peter Wilby wrote an absurd article about David Cameron, cannabis and the now infamous Bullingdon Club photo.

Roy Hattersley has returned to the theme:

That does not mean last week's tittle-tattle left Cameron unscathed. He suffered what the Pentagon would call collateral damage. His problem was not the pot, but the picture... The question it provokes is obvious. "Understands ordinary people?"

I don't doubt that some voters will be turned off pictures of sneering toffs (though, let's remember, the Bullingdon Twelve were posing for a photo and - my God, perhaps, playing up to the camera knowing that much of Oxford thought they were tossers), but my question is who are these "ordinary people" that need understanding?

I consider myself to be from a pretty typical background (lower middle-class, suburban) but then I went to Cambridge, where I met lots of privately-educated people, and then to work in newspapers, where I met even more. I'm sure that their attitudes - because we all know posh people have exactly the same views - have rubbed off on me: so does that now disqualify me from understanding "ordinary people". Heck, I'm a top-rate taxpayer, so does that disqualify me too? Also, I'm a childless gay so that must remove me even further from the concerns of ordinary people... so perhaps we shouldn't have gay MPs.

Now, what about the children of immigrants from, let's say, Bangladesh. Their family life, their experiences and the values that they are taught  are quite different from their white neighbours. Do they count as "ordinary people"? Can they understand the concerns of the white majority? And what about a steelworker from South Wales - his life is pretty different from a retail worker from Crawley? A council-house tenant doesn't have to worry about mortgages, so he doesn't know much about the woes that face homeowners. And... you get the picture. The "ordinary voter" is a pretty rare thing.

The class baiting of David Cameron is plain dumb. It presupposes that we are all prisoners of our background, incapable and unwilling of making the imaginative leap and learning about other peoples' lives. After all Roy Hattersley and Norman Tebbit are of a similar vintage, both grammar school boys from unprivileged backgrounds, and both with a good schtick about speaking-up for ordinary people - so how come they have radically divergent views?

That's not to say that Britain doesn't have a class problem. I can chunter with the best of them about the nepotism and cronyism. It's just that a few rich Tory kids at the Bullingdon aren't the issue (sorry Clive Davis). The real damage to meritocracy and social mobility is the shambolic state of Britain's education system. Fewer children from the state sector go to Oxbridge now - Oxford and Cambridge have been brilliant institutions for giving a leg-up to people from humble backgrounds - than they did in the Sixties. And why did that happen? The abolition of grammar schools in favour of Roy Hattersley's beloved comprehensives.   

Robbie Millen

The strange reaction to Saddam's hanging

The Press Gazette records that only 25 people complained to Ofcom about the television footage of Saddam's execution, while 1,000 complained about the eviction procedure on Big Brother.

Whether or not you quite agree with this ranking of priority, do you share my view that there has been something strange about the reaction to the hanging?

Politicians and commentators seem to be furious that someone shouted "Boooooo, down with dictators" or whatever, while ignoring the fact that Saddam was hanged. Now, Saddam and I don't have quite the same way of looking at things, but I am pretty certain that if I were in the same position as he, I'd be more hacked off at being executed than I would at being heckled while it was happening. Then again, perhaps that's just me.

Both John Prescott and David Cameron excused themselves from commenting on the execution, because that was a matter for the Iraqis, before condemning the booing, which apparently is open to foreign criticism.

I'm obviously missing something.

For the Tories, ideological purity means paying the electoral price

There was an interesting post on Peter Briffa's site yesterday, which is not itself unusual since he often posts interesting stuff. What was unusual, and striking, was the error he made.

Now Briffa does not like David Cameron, and takes Cameron supporter Nick Boles to task for an article the latter wrote in the Daily Telegraph. Quoting a Boles phrase about Cameron achieving greater connection with mainstream voters, Briffa caustically remarks:

Which explains why he is actually behind the Labour Party in the opinion polls, presumably.

Well, er, I am sure it would if that were right. Except that it isn't. Cameron's Tories are plainly ahead in the polls and have been for months.

Since Briffa is well informed and intelligent, why does he make this error? For the same reason that Simon Heffer often (as he did in his latest column) argues that the Tory performance has been electorally disappointing. Because they want to suggest that the greater ideological purity that they advocate would be costless. But it wouldn't.

The basic Briffa/Heffer position - that Cameron should not betray basic Tory principles - does not depend for justification on the party's fortunes in the polls. Suggesting that Cameron's compromises are unconscionable is a perfectly respectable position. But these compromises are winning votes and abandoning them will cost votes. You may still then decide not to go along with Cameron, but only if you are willing to pay the price.

Saying that Cameron has not improved the party's poll rating is simply incorrect. And Heffer's more subtle suggestion that the party could be doing better if it was more obviously right wing flies in the face of all evidence.

Those who want the Conservative Party to remain pure should argue that case on its merits (and it does have some). But they should be open about its costs.

Strategy Memo: Did the Chancellor notice Cameron's change of attack?

1. Before I get onto the meat of this memo, can I make a quick point first about demeanour? When you become Prime Minister you will be the butt of jokes. When you are the butt of jokes, people will look at you. And when they look at you it is important that you do not look thunderous. If you do you will:

a. Make a middling to average gag at your expense seem hilarious.
b. Seem as if you have no sense of humour at all.

Neither of these things is a good idea.

2. But that is not my main point in sending you this memo. I am writing because I wanted to be certain you had noticed a switch in the Tory strategy towards you. David Cameron devoted quite a lot of his speech to an attack on you. But did you spot the missing words? That's right. He did not use the phrase "the roadblock to reform".

3. There is more to this than switching irritating soundbites. The "roadblock to reform" attack was all about separating you from the Prime Minister. It implied that you would change the government, but in a bad direction. I think they have dropped the roadblock phrase because they have decided to abandon this whole argument. And that is significant.

4. What Cameron is saying now, what he said several times today, is that you would be more of the same. His focus groups must be telling him that this is the best attack.

5. We obviously need to do some more work of our own on this, but it certainly sharpens our dilemma. Do we position you as change (which might scare some people) or as continuity (which the Tories have clearly concluded is a loser for you)?

Strategy memo: Labour's glaring weakness

1. Please note the contents of the memo to the Prime Minister below. In particular, can I draw your attention to point 6? You can greatly undermine John Reid by expressing yourself horrified that the main point of the Queen’s Speech appears to be to undermine the Conservative Party politically. Wait for a particularly crass expression of this idea and then come out strongly. Express yourself as shocked that the Government appears more interested in the politics of crime than in crime itself.

2. They have left themselves wide open to this attack, I promise you.

The Dave Test

I used to have an informal test for absurd right-wing fogeyishness. If my interlocutor insisted on calling me Finkelshhhtein, they passed the test, and could duly be regarded as right-wing fogeys.

This however restricts those who could be tested to people whom I knew. So now I have replaced it with my all new Dave test.

Columnists who, when attacking David Cameron, attempt to belittle him by calling him Dave pass the test.

Congratulations to my good friend Stephen Pollard who, after many years of trying, has finally qualified.

The future of political communication

I remember the arguments in Conservative Central Office about how much to spend on party political broadcasts. They were always unbelievably expensive. Now David Cameron's advisers have come up with a solution - make them without any production values whatsoever.

But, shaky camera and all, anyone interested in the future of political communication simply has to visit the new Webcameron site.

The Goodies used to talk about the Lord Privy Seal while pictures of a Lord, a privy and a seal flashed up on the screen.

On Webcameron the Tory leader is, I am not making this up, stacking a dishwasher while talking about cleaning up politics.

The Fukuyama connection

Guido Fawkes has an extremely insightful posting on the Cameron speech. He suggests that it owes a big intellectual debt to Francis Fukuyama's After the Neocons. Having read both together last night, I am sure he is right, at least about content if not structure.

Some of Guido's commenters appear to think that revealing Cameron's reading list is a "gotcha" moment. Peter Hitchens (update: it's worth making it clear that this is not the journalist Peter Hitchens) even absurdly links it to an assertion that David Cameron will never be Prime Minister. He may, of course, be right about this, but I doubt the Fukuyama copyright issue will be a big one by the election.

Yet while I can't see anything wrong with getting ideas by reading a book, the Fukuyama connection does raise two important questions.

First, Guido argues that since Fukuyama opposes the Iraq war, Cameron's support for it, having accepted so many other Fukuyama points, is a "dodgy conclusion". Yet Fukuyama's disapproval of the Iraq adventure was not his conclusion. It was his starting point. Cameron's starting point was simply different. Also, being American, Fukuyama does not reflect on one of the main reasons Tony Blair (and British Conservatives) supported the Iraq war - we were asked for our support by an American president and were keen to be good allies.

Nevertheless, Guido's interpretation does leave the question - for all Cameron's Fukuyama type caveats, would the Tory leader, in practice, have acted any differently to Tony Blair?

The second issue raised by the Fukuyama link is whether I was right to argue that Cameron made a neocon speech. After all, Cameron says he is something else and Fukuyama does too. Shouldn't I just take their word for it?

Well, the main themes of a Cameron foreign policy - including promoting freedom round the world and the notable omission of any reference to the national interest or realpolitik - seem to me undeniably neocon. Even his addition of patience and humility chime with the earliest neocon writings on domestic policy.

Fukuyama simply believes that the conduct of the Bush regime has led to the neocon label being tainted, tangled up with, say, Rumsfeld's views about troop deployment (as this Times leader argues). And even though Rumsfeld is not a neocon, Fukuyama decides to leave him with the label and move on. For understandable reasons, Cameron has done the same. But the choice of label doesn't alter the speech's thrust.

A neocon speech

David Cameron's foreign policy speech is worth reading in full, when you next have the time. A good summary can be found here.

The speech may be seen as distancing conservatives from neoconservatives. In fact, it does nothing of the sort. Instead it is endorsing neoconservatism and then trying to distance it from the conduct of foreign policy by George Bush and Tony Blair.

Can this be done?

Well, certainly there are powerful criticisms that can be made of the conduct of the Iraq and (to a lesser extent) the Afghanistan campaigns. It is also right to argue, as Cameron does, that building a free and civil society is about more than holding elections (indeed this is a central proposition of Natan Sharansky in his brilliant book The Case for Democracy). And it is always possible to demonstrate that a government has shown too little humility and patience.

However one blogger described (in a US context) this sort of criticism of Mr Bush's policy as "the incompetence dodge". In other words, when a tough policy runs into difficulty you blame it all on the competence of execution, when, in fact, difficulty was inevitable given the basic decision. If David Cameron in government had been faced with making a decision on Iraq, it is conceivable he might have acted differently. It is hard, however, to see the outcome having been hugely different. More humility and patience would not have reduced the number of marchers or furious Muslims. More soldiers would have helped, but Britain might have had difficulty prevailing on this matter over a US Secretary of Defence.

So Mr Cameron has made a good speech, cleverly positioning his party ideologically and politically. But his speech should be seen for what it is - a restatement of a neocon foreign policy.

Film-star looks, film-star policy?

David Cameron is still working on the foreign policy speech that he is due to make later today. He has issued a short extract attacking anti-Americanism. This may be cleverly chosen to prepare the ground, but it is more likely (from my own experience) to have been released early because it was the only finished bit.

Neocons in the party who have seen drafts are sounding relaxed about its content and say that it is an attempt to move to the position taken in the US by administration critics like John McCain.

In America, conservatives are concerned about Cameron's position. One writer in National Review Online comparing him to Hugh Grant's character in Love Actually.

Conservativehome, which links to this criticism, also provides what I regard as an excellent summary of a conservative policy on terror – almost a checklist against which Mr Cameron's speech can be judged.