Keeping order?
So Ali Miraj, whose extraordinary of David Cameron I first reported on the Ten O'Clock News on Monday night, is struck off the list of approved candidates for the Conservative Party.
The view from the leadership, his behaviour was completely unacceptable and he therefore should be punished.
Now there is no chance of him being selected to fight any constituency for the party at the next election. But he knew that would be the case when he opened his mouth on Monday night for his scathing attack on what he termed, David Cameron's "complete lack of judgement". He told me, "I know this means I'll never be an MP now but I felt I had to speak out."
So if he knew he would never have a chance of being selected, did the party actually need to suspend him? Was it smashing a nut with a sledgehammer?
Ali Miraj was not a big name in the party. A 'new Tory' and someone formerly close to David Cameron yes, but by no means a major player.
Indeed, had his criticisms not come on the same day as comments from Lord Saatchi, arguably they might not have been much reported.
The story was beginning to die down yesterday afternoon when the party then announced his suspension. So why reignite the row? Didn't that just draw more attention to Ali Miraj's criticisms?
Certainly, there was real anger that an obscure former parliamentary candidate could, in the leader's office, make clear his ambitions for a peerage, be turned down, and then march out and brief journalists like me, and circulate what was clearly a pre-prepared and damning critique of the leader. So the party wanted to make it clear they wouldn't put up with it.
But this isn't just about Mr Miraj's behaviour. David Cameron's authority has been under attack in recent weeks.
First the over grammar schools, then two disappointing , then his decision to to go to Rwanda while much of his constituency was under flood water. So the Miraj episode presented itself as the perfect chance for him to assert that authority, to look in charge, and tell members of his own party, 'Don't mess with me'.
David Cameron knows there are plenty of people in the party who have doubts about the direction he's taking them in. But by suspending Ali Miraj they have all been told, keep those doubts to yourselves.
I'm 
Comments
Not a fan of the Tories but why do they always seem intent on self destructing? We need a united Tory party that can actually do its job which is opposing the government.
It was the right thing to do, but what Cameron really needs is some more "public executions". It should be made clear that you are either 100% behind the party or you are out.
Discipline is important - undisciplined parties do NOT get elected.
Turf out a few more of the backstabbers and let them spill their vitriol. Tell them to stand as independents and see how they do.
Look at the example Maggie set - firm and uncompromising, but you knew where you stood with her. Even those who disliked her often respected her commitment, honesty and determination.
Regardless of my poletics I do believe taht it is healthy to have a change of politcal colours in charge every now and then, just to keep people on their toes. I do have one big 'however', however! The country should be run by people of true substance if not necessarily principle(the come upance of many a prophet). D.C. has very little obviouse substance to speak of and opposit GB is just empty. If he is a copy of a TB sandwich then all we are left with is salad lettice. Seems like a nice chap, but I dont want a nice chap in charge, I want one with guts, honesty and a sense of justice.
Oh dear. Even when Mr Cameron has an open goal he seems intent on hitting the ball into the crowd behind it...
You can imagine the Cameronites (Cameroonians? what DO we call them?) in an Eton-style huddle, all pressing 'Dave' to 'strike while the iron is hot'. After all, making it plain that Miraj had asked for a peerage and that Cameron had turned him down would reflect well on his (Cameron's) integrity (no peerages for favours, let alone cash, for him!). Moreover, suspending Miraj for evident dissent shows Cameron - no doubt they said - to be a strong assertive leader.
Where they got it all so terribly wrong is that (a) very little of this registers with the public, (b) as you noted Laura, Miraj is so small a fish that the suspension will have no effect on critics like Edward Leigh, and (c) it does nothing at all to address the big issue facing 'Dave', which is to find some distinctive policies with a resonance with the British public - fast.
In an age when politics has increasingly become gimmicky and trite and where competence and stamina seem rare commodities, it is up to Mr cameron to find a recipe for the success of his party. I doubt that he will, and he and the Cameronian advisers trailing in his wake will have had their day. Next!
In answer to Brian's comment at 12.24:
You certainly knew where you were with Margaret Thatcher. That was in the Conservative Party, the problem seems to be that Conservatives are increasingly not recognising the Party as Conservative.
Yesterday, what David Cameron was saying about discipline in schools was important and substantial. Having been a school governor for a number of years, I am aware how frustrating it is for teachers who want to teach pupils who want to learn when there is disruption by those who can't or won't learn.
The Tories are at the stage that a lot of research into problems is surfacing, just what everybody says they have been waiting for. The IDS document is a scholarly work which has generally been well received. Let us see what they have to say and if constructive criticism is then required, so be it. At the moment I think a lot of good ideas are coming out.
Gordon Brown obviously thinks so to because he is trying to take some of them for his own. The only thing is, as with reshuffle of the immigration authorities, he only does it by half - the idea but without the substance.
David Cameron has a real challenge to deal with in recrafting party policy and his own members attitudes to something credible and popular. This isn't going to happen overnight. While the policy light and touchy feely approach has its dangers by dropping policy talk and beating another drum it gives the Conservative Party an opportunity to take a holiday from itself, think differently, and explore different attitudes. And for the alleged sharp minds and committed supporters this is something they would be wise to allow happen. In its own time. In its own way.
Power and ambition are closely linked but what is the point of winning an election if the Conservative Party remains a narrow minded and selfish party, or if any change is merely surface, or the changes have not yet developed quality of action? Making a power grab or fanning the flames of internal revolt is pretty immature and doesn't speak much of the people who wish to have power and influence over other people. A Chinese proverb suggests that "if you wish to raise a confident son, first, you must cure your own fear." Indeed, if the Conservative Party wishes to create a better Britain, first, it must create a better Conservative Party.
I've been hearing the word "anger" go the rounds a lot, recently. This politician is "angry", that organisation "reacted with anger", and the public "were angry." It seems to be the default description for anyone's approach to anything, and I'm not sure it's entirely true, advisable, or a good example. It's strong and gets a reaction but not the best lead. It's dumb and truculent, understandable but rigid, negative, and backward looking. With a little more consideration a better way of framing things could be developed. Stepping back gives more space for insight and consideration to develop. It would be welcome and timely.
So, there's a vacancy, Dave? I can wait… :-P
Large scale State intervention {in your lives} works extremely well ... if you live in Denmark.
But Tony Blair, no less, pointed out that the default political mode of 'Middle England' was somewhat to the right of the Labour Party.
Therefore, a slightly 'right-wing' political grouping would probably be the natural governing group in England.
And almost certainly will be ... post-devolution, when the Scots finally get their own self-determination, thus freeing England to pursue its own course.
Ps. I can't bring myself to say anything about the 'Tories', other than what a complete waste of space they currently are, just sitting by praying for Labour to screw up the economy, so that they can step in and fill the boots. They have no bottle/policies/heart and so fully deserve to be out of power.
At least one person in the country takes Cameron seriously - Ali Miraj. Is anyone buying into Cameron's "broken society"?
Laura K is so concerned with promoting negative publicity about David Cameron that she totally contradicts herself.
Why does she give such a nobody so much profile...because he's slagging off Cameron. I notice that she confirms how Miraj tried to blackmail his way to a peerage on ths site but forgot to mention this on the news coverage. How can she conceive of him being left in the party after this? Explain Laura why the problems in Rwanda are less important than those in Oxfordshire?
I look forward to Nick Robinsons professional, balanced reporting on his return.
There always going to be a bounce for Labour when Gordon Brown became PM, people are critical of the leadership in every political party and all sensible people knew that the Tories always going to come third in Ealing Southall and Sedgefield.
It is lazy reporting to try and sell this as 'trouble for Cameron'?
Labour were behind for months in the polls, lost 'safe' seats to the Lib Dems, and Diane Abbott used to rubbish Blair weekly on This Week, yet no 'Blair in trouble' stories appeared.
Inventing the news is a bit like inventing winners.
I am fascinated that the 91Èȱ¬ are having fun battering the Tories. On your own 91Èȱ¬ website today, your Poll of Polls show that since April, the Tories share of the vote has dropped by just 3%.
The Liberal vote has fallen by an even greater margin than this and yet the 91Èȱ¬ chooses to focus on the Tory fall and not the greater Liberal decline. Interesting that, and I am sure not an indication of 91Èȱ¬ bias on the subject.
Also, the so called Brown bounce is the same as that enjoyed by James Callaghan when he took over from Harold Wilson and we all know what happened to him!
Why did the 91Èȱ¬ give an 'obscure' Tory such publicity? There are one or two minor/obscure critics in the Tory party of Cameron but none of headline news stature.
Where is all the headline news reporting of Labour members being critical of their leader?
How impatient and fickle the nation is.
Within a short while the pains of ten years of Labour control will be manifest.
David Cameron is on the right track.
How impatient and fickle the nation is.
Within a short while the pains of ten years of Labour control will be manifest.
David Cameron is on the right track.
Andrew (post No. 12) says
"I am fascinated that the 91Èȱ¬ are having fun battering the Tories.
...
The Liberal vote has fallen by an even greater margin than this and yet the 91Èȱ¬ chooses to focus on the Tory fall and not the greater Liberal decline. "
See here
Greg Dyke was a contributor to Labour, and Gavin Davies, who was a deputy chairman, had a wife who worked for Gordon Brown as well as being a labour supporter himself.
Then you have things like "The Now Show" which are full of left wing rants, etc, etc. One editor of the Today programme (Rod Liddle) was a member of Socialist Worker and then worked for the Labour Cabinet when it was in opposition.
The 91Èȱ¬ appears to have a strong left/liberal bias - not only at the top, but lower down the ranks too. They don't strike me as "Tory friendly" and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that "lefty" discontent never gets a murmur whilst any tory upset is headline news for days.
It was Mr Miraj stating shamelessly that the peerage matter was "neither here nor there" when I caught my breath. An obviously inappropriate request for a peerage wished away in four words and the fact that it was all that David Cameron took away from his meeting with Mr Miraj.
Mr Miraj has not denied the gist of his meeting with the Tory leader - so I spare little pity on him.
I consider you cannot lead the Tory party anyway - they pull in too many different directions and have little love for other Torys views.
Team Cameron is almost a one man team I am afraid. One musketeer - all has it in for one and one for one!
something from Ali Miraj's comments obviously hit David Cameron hard. Could that mean there's some truth in it? Also note how nearly everyone else who critiscised him were former this and former that?
David Cameron was able to judge the motives of people becoming close to him with all kinds of advice with one thing in mind-Peerage.At present time he has to focus on the party's future ,which looks bleaker as the days go by it won't be a surprise if the tory continue to be in opposition for the 4th term come general election, and not the individuals.
I think the Conservatives are treated very fairly by the 91Èȱ¬. For long periods the 91Èȱ¬ website politics pages have more links to new Conservative policies than to those of the Lib Dems or of the government; they rarely have counter discussion, whereas the Conservative spokesman is usually quoted as well as government sources on government stories.
If he and his party cannot take balanced reporting now he'll feel much pain in the run up to a general election.
I'm relaxed about Laura's blog and Cameron's response. The blog gives enough information to make up your own mind and, in fact, gives Cameron an opportunity to look good. In any case, Laura and Cameron are responsible for themselves but I take the view that I'm responsible for me. It doesn't matter what they say or do. It's what I do that counts. Anything else is babble.
I thought the same. There's a possibility he might have been indirectly voicing some genuine dissatisfaction but his follow-up didn't look too hot. In fact, it reminded me of some of the more corrupt mayors holding sway over small towns in India. His request was incredibly arrogant and selfish. Cameron was quite right to deal with him. People like that needing weeding out without mercy.
In reply to Mark, I believe they would be called the Cameroons :)
I have absolutely no idea who Ali Miraj is, nor am I concerned that he is gone. It surprises me that anyone thinks it matters.
As to left leaning bias, I am always astounded how far down the pecking list of headlines on the 6 O'Clock news, good stories from the Conservatives are covered. More often than not, these stories feature around 6.15-6.20, by which time most viewers have grabbed the headlines, and regard these as the key points of the day. In other words, few people get positive impressions of the Conservatives from the 91Èȱ¬.
Earlier contributors pointed out some of the connections between Labour and the 91Èȱ¬, however, I was still surprised to find out that Adrian Chiles and his partner Jayne Garvey had attended Chequers at the invitation of the then PM Mr Blair.
Equally, Nick tends to be found in the company of the PM whenever the latter travels overseas. How then can Nick form a balanced view of Brown v's Cameron, unless he cares to follow Cameron to places such as Rwanda or Afghanistan?
Having moaned about the bias, I hope that someone is listening and will take action, but somehow I doubt it.
Cameron shouldn't worry unduly. Brown has serious weaknesses that are showing. Despite his claims, it's becoming clear that the guy is all spin - rather amateurish spin, but nevertheless spin. To say the people of Glos. (the real people, not the planted ones you saw on the news) were hopping mad with his publicity stunt appearances distracting our emergency services at crucial times would be an understatement. Ming Campbell had the right idea - visit the support staff a little further off, and not get in the way. Brown also has no money with which to fight an election campaign - and despite his claims, after "cash for peerages" his chances of getting any from anywhere except the unions are slender. The man's an economist of great prestige - he must know how money works in the real world, so if he says anything else, it is pure self-deception.
Much more interesting than any of this is the evidence that the "Brown bounce" (always weaker than the huge bound enjoyed by Major in 1991) may already be dissipating. Last week it was 9 points, now it is 5. A miserly 5 point lead is not going to survive a general election campaign with Cameron's film star good looks on every TV screen while Brown tries to explain to English voters that despite the fact that he is a pompous, dour, even slightly stereotypical Scot who needs a map to find Gloucester or Hull, he is the man to lead them.
David Cameron does have his critics on the far right, notably Brady, Simon Heffer, Quentin Davies and the Daily Telegraph. This, in my experience (drawn from both Wales and Gloucestershire) suggests to all sane voters (contrary to popular belief, most of the electorate) that he must be on the right track. My bet is that by October the Tories will be back in a 7 point lead and Brown will limp on until 2010 before calling an election.
I had to laugh at Huw's comments. Brown is all apparently all spin and he couldn't face up to a whole month of Cameron's "good looks" !! Not his policies, not his acumen, not his core beliefs, not his knowledge of our country - but his Hollywood looks. How insubstantial is that ?!!
I grant you that Brown is probably not as good a campaigner as Cameron, out on the stump but he is reknowned as a political strategist and I doubt the Tories have anyone to match this strength, and if they did he wouldn't get promoted unless he'd been to Eton !
It sounded plausible and didn't have that ugly tone a lot of the more partisan comments have but it falls apart like a cream puff in a centrifuge. It had a good structure and emotional kick but has zip substance and does exactly what it preaches against. If it's the best attempt I'll sleep easy. (I knew there was a positive in there somewhere.)
Personally, I'm all for Cameron staying cool on policies and working on tone. It's important he defuse the ideologues and aging membership so he has room to turn the ship around. I can't see his party being fit for government for a long time and, if he were honest, he'd probably say the same. As for if and when, that's no point in forcing it.
I notice 2 replies, both rather mocking in tone. Brown a renowned political strategist and good, solid substance? The same man who was so wrong-footed by Tony Blair in the Labour leadership election of 1994? The man who lost Dunfermline for Labour? The man who is for the war, against the war, sees merits in both arguments, or refuses to discuss it, depending on who he is talking to? The man who thinks Ed Balls, Jacqui Smith and Ruth Kelly are fit for Cabinet posts? Come on Kev and Charles, get a grip!!! Brown is not a good communicator, but he foolishly attempts to be one. His efforts to portray himself as a victim over the "Granita deal" in 1994 are laughable. Had he stood, he would have lost.
As for his policies - the axing of our infantry regiments, the sale of our gold reserves, his giving away of powers already effectively lost to him, the refusal to discuss proper all-round devolution for England and Wales, and above all the grotesque bankrupting of private pension funds - yeah, the man has great policies, let's talk about them instead!
More interesting, anyone see the other post on this blog this morning - that I was right about his total lack of cash, so talk of a bounce is a bit irrelevant?
You can sleep easy if you like fellers - Labour seems to have become almost as complacent as it was in 1992 or 1970. I don't mind you laughing - politics is a funny business after all - but I would advise you to stop laughing and start working, because you have problems in store.
Finally, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that I am a Tory - over the last few years I have actually swung between Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats. Never in a million years would I vote for an idiot like Brown - but I might consider voting for Cameron.
Huw Clayton, Aberystwyth, late of Gloucester.
Laura,
There is another subtext to this story. David Cameron is increasingly distancing himself from the A-list. In the recent by-election in Ealing, Tony Lit had not even been through the procedure. (The first requirement is membership of the party for at least three months).The party rank and file hate the list - I think it is highly likely that this is the first shot across the bows to abolish it rather than let it die by attrition.
Is this the same Ali Miraj who stood for the Tories in Watford in 2005 and saw his share of the vote fall massively and allow the Lib Dems to catapult from 3rd to 2nd place? I wonder if he is best placed to comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of his leader and the Tory campaign of recent months? Equally, one has to ask of Mr Miraj and the other snipers: do they like being in opposition? For that is where they will remain while the perception is created of a divided party. Have they learned nothing from late 1992 onwards?
David Cameron thinks that he has to present a program that will attract the floating voters. His problem is that the Conservative party does not recognise it as conservative and the floating voters see it as improbable coming from an Eton schoolboy and a front bench of Eton schoolboys.
.
.
Gill Wright is correct is saying that G Brown lacks substance. We have had 10 years of public services deteriorating to a level beyond repair. This has happened on G Browns watch with his hand holding the purse strings. Labour have brought about change for changes sake with no experiemce or professionalism in any area. The results and delivery have been abysmal.Billions have been spent on management consultants who are indeed the best spinners yet with talk of 'Added value'! D Cameron has made mistakes and will continue to do so, 'To err is human........' The two by-electons showed an improvement in their share of the vote, Labour had their vote badly knocked, and yet this has rarely been mentioned. The Lib Dems were the real gainers, and that means if you are undecided, vote Lib Dem and you will get Labour! Time to think. The 91Èȱ¬ spend their time being negative about the conservatives and if there is anything positive, as Stephen says, it is so far down in the news bulliten that peoples concentration has long gone. Reporting should be just that, reporting without the spin and the bias. A balanced view would be nice, after all we are paying for it.
Clearly Dave 1 MacCamaroon should have used an enforcer to sort this.
Criticisms of the very successful H Wilson and T Blair are pointers to efficient practice: they used "kitchen" or "sofa" government.
Tory leaders presumably did much the same, but attracyed less criticism . . . funny . . .
Only a closely knit "court" of colleagues and factotums operates efficiently in these situations.
By acting macho MacCamaroon has lost yet more kudos, especially with his right wingers.
Hague looks yet more attractive to these people.
Yet his blethering re the Reform Treaty is disingenuos at best.
It is 1/5 the length of the "Constitution" and, in effect, he is selling the pass on any issue he really worries about by staking all on an unlikely referendum.