A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

I have noted my surprise and my (perhaps implicit) disapproval with the direction in which David Cameron is taking the Conservative Party in Great Britain. In the interests of equal time, however, let me note this Economist article which is generally more respectful of Cameron's tactics:

It is now just over six weeks since Mr Cameron was elected leader by a two-to-one majority and his initial strategy has become clear. He has three interlocking aims. The first is to deal quickly and decisively with what the party chairman, Francis Maude, calls the Tories' brand problem. During the last election, the party discovered that once a policy was identified with the Conservatives, it automatically became unpopular with voters even if they had approved of it before its attribution.

The second is to establish a clear sense of direction that will inform detailed work on policy. The third, according to Oliver Letwin, who is in charge of the policy review, is to "buy the right" later on to have radical ideas taken seriously. That can only be done by changing perceptions of the party's motives--above all, the belief that Tories are mean-spirited and selfish.

Without anything as significant symbolically as Labour's pro-nationalisation Clause Four to scrap, Mr Cameron has chosen to move on multiple fronts. Some of the things he has done smack of gimmickry, such as recruiting the poverty campaigner Bob Geldof and the green activist Zac Goldsmith as policy advisers (he even tried to enlist one prominent Labour backbencher). But the series of speeches he has made since becoming leader have been deadly serious in their intent.

Portrayed in much of the press as a rejection of long-held Tory principles and policies, the speeches have earned Mr Cameron glowing praise from liberal newspapers and ill-tempered suspicion from their right-wing counterparts--exactly what he had hoped for. But what makes them so clever is the impact they have had without Mr Cameron saying anything extraordinary.

It is true that the Tory leader has explicitly ruled out any return to the 11-plus selection exam or the creation of new grammar schools. It is also true that he has committed himself to maintaining the existing tax-funded financing for the health service. But in 18 years of Tory government before 1997 not a single new grammar school was opened, nor did even Margaret Thatcher challenge the funding principles of the NHS.

Yet some Tory commentators and think-tank intellectuals have condemned Mr Cameron for abandoning sacred Conservative values, which is some indication of how far the party had drifted from mainstream political opinion. There are arguments both for academic selection and insurance-based health systems, but there is little evidence that British voters are interested in hearing them--least of all from the Tories.

The break that Mr Cameron's speeches mark is with the years of Tory failure rather than the years of Tory success. They do not rule out, as some critics have claimed, applying a market-based approach to the provision of public services or reinvigorating the supply-side of the economy. What they do demonstrate is that in politics how you say things is as important as what you say.

Fair enough, but in my own defense, let me note the end of the article:

Mr Cameron's strategy of popping up all over the place sounding terribly decent and looking as if he belongs in the 21st century is working a treat and he is carrying it off with elan. But when the shock wears off, will he know what to do next?

which is not so far from what I write:

Conservatives may argue that they are doing what is necessary to win a general election -- something they last did in 1992. They may point to stories like this one, which observes that David Cameron is making remarkable progress in claiming the center ground in British politics and that the Conservatives' newfound success in the polls serves as a vindication of the revamping of their policies. But an open question exists as to whether the Conservatives' poll success has more to do with the fact that David Cameron is a fresh face and whether the current polling strength of the Conservatives will dissipate when the fresh face becomes a more familiar one.