David Cameron's campaign suggests a belief in nothing except money

Given the state of the economy, the Conservatives should have shown greater restraint when funding their campaign, says Simon Heffer.

Reuters Is it really going to take £18 million to put the Opposition's message across? David Cameron's campaign suggests a belief in nothing except money
Is it really going to take £18 million to put the Opposition's message across? Credit: Photo: Reuters

Since we shall soon know the outcome, this column is taking a self-denying ordinance on predicting the result of the 2010 general election. Indeed, it takes that view of all general elections next year, for among the many things it will not predict is how many such contests there will be. It will just comment on the campaign now under way: a campaign from which it, like many of its readers, will derive little enjoyment, and in which the pleasure will reduce with each day that passes, each lie told and each absurdity perpetrated.

David Cameron opened the batting on Monday with his New Year message, at a time when most of us simply wished to get on with Boxing Day in peace. It was a ludicrous document – ludicrous in its content and the pomposity of its self-regard – which you will forgive my not repeating here. Masochists will find it on the Conservatives' website, complete with video. Two features of it stood out. The first was a lecture detailing some (but not all) of the attributes of contemporary politics and politicians that we find so distasteful. These included the adversarial nature of our democracy and the inability of those who participate in it to admit error. Since it already defied credibility that Mr Cameron was going to reject such behaviour for his own part and on behalf of his colleagues, I was not sure whether I was relieved or disappointed when he not only said he was guilty of such things, but would no doubt do them again. As messages of hope go, it was not of the first rank.

The most perplexing aspect of the message was its blithe assertion that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats now have few points of disagreement. That is not how the Lib Dems see it, and they are right; for if any party can outdo them for sheer lack of principle it is the Tories. This was the latest example in our politics of the love that dares not speak its name. Gordon Brown exhibited it at Brighton in September, when offering the prospect of a referendum on the alternative vote system. Now Mr Cameron holds out an olive branch to a party that most of his MPs fear and despise. Such is the desperation not so much to win as to form a government that that fear and loathing will be kept out of sight for the next few months. Whether Mr Cameron admits it or not, the notion that his party may have to propitiate certain Lib Dem ideals in order to stay in power enrages many of his backbenchers. That they may, in an extreme, have to contemplate a Lib Dem or two sitting in the cabinet is something too horrible to compute.

We are well aware that the Conservative leadership loathes the party's core vote and feels it can gain electoral advancement without it. However, what chance does it have of converting millions of Lib Dem voters to its cause? If faced with a real Liberal Democratic party to vote for and a party that is a shallow and temporary imitation of one, which would you choose? Many of you will have heard Eric Pickles, the chairman of the Conservatives, try to defend Mr Cameron's overtures to the Lib Dems as coming from a Tory party that was now the bastion of "liberal democracy". What does that mean? Mrs Thatcher, for heaven's sake, upheld liberal democracy, and did a far better job of it than it is feasible to imagine Mr Cameron doing. Is Mr Pickles trying to tell us that a new Thatcherism is on the horizon? I doubt it. This pose lays bare two things. The first is that the Tories are truly concerned that they will govern after an election only with the support of another party. The second is that they will prostitute anything resembling a conservative principle in order to have a chance of doing even that. Natural conservative voters should draw their own conclusions about how their vote may best be cast. How happy, as he surveys the immediate future, must Nick Clegg be feeling.

A second reservation about the conduct of the campaign concerns money: not the frightening morass of our public finances, which the Conservatives still show no sign of grasping, but the funding of the Conservative Party itself. I am told that the budget for the forthcoming campaign has been agreed, and it will be £18 million. How does that resonate with a country in the grip of austerity? What does it suggest about the party's understanding of the value of money? What if a second campaign had to be funded later in 2010? Given the circumstances, would a little more restraint not have been in order? Given, also, the very obvious mess that the Government has made of the country, is it really going to take £18 million to put that message across? Perhaps it does if the Opposition has no clear policy of its own. Recent polls have suggested that the Tories remain ahead, but that few know what they stand for. Getting through an election campaign with a degree of success but without having to admit to believing in anything is, I can see, an expensive business, even though we all thought flannel was cheap.

Aside from the size of this public-relations budget, the desire for money to fund it has already put Mr Cameron and his party in what could be a difficult position. He feels beholden to Lord Ashcroft, a businessman whose money has not always been welcomed by the party in the past, and a figure of controversy not least because he will not confirm where he pays taxes. I am happy to give Lord Ashcroft the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he pays them here. Even if that is so, should he have been allowed to acquire the power that was criticised to me by a senior Tory MP during the last week, of being able to demand certain conduct by candidates in the 140 or so marginal seats where he is providing direct financial assistance? Is Mr Cameron happy with a man who supposedly gives so much money to his party having in return what is effectively a policy-making role? How inclusive is that?

Finally, there has been much sniggering about another of Mr Cameron's big donors, David Ross, who has a colourful private life. Concern is not so much about this – he is a big boy, after all – but that the Tories should be associated with people whose private lives are, well, colourful. Most of those who vote Tory, or who would like to vote Tory, would rather put their heads in a mincer than associate with people who seem interested in politics because of what it can do for their business. I know £18 million is a lot of money but, if you choose not to spend it in the first place, you don't need to ingratiate yourself with the types who might give it to you. I know these are old-fashioned sentiments, but the scope for damage to the Conservative cause from such activities is far greater than Mr Cameron, or the teenagers around him, want to understand. Happy New Year.