CRAWFORD REVISITED:

Cameron is not Brideshead Rebranded (Matthew d'Ancona, 11/12/2005, Daily Telegraph)

Confronted for the first time since 1997 with an electable Tory leader, Labour is experiencing the strategic confusion that afflicted the Conservatives when Tony Blair succeeded John Smith. Was Blair really a Tory? Was he Bambi or Stalin? Was he a crypto-socialist? Or was "New Labour", in fact, even worse - a "new danger"? The Tories never managed to pin down the Prime Minister, as his remarkable electoral record attests. "I still think we couldn't beat him," one Shadow Cabinet member told me. "The good news is that we don't have to. It's all about Gordon now."

Those Blairites I have spoken to believe that Mr Cameron is vulnerable on Europe because of his plan to withdraw Tory MEPs from the European People's Party grouping, which they hope will generate a good old-fashioned Tory split. But Number 10 also wants to present Mr Cameron more subtly as an impostor on the centre-ground, welcoming him to this terrain and then belittling him. "It'll be useful to Tony," according to one Cabinet Minister. "It'll prove the difference between Centre-Left and Centre-Right." Another senior minister puts it thus: "We'll be fine, as long as Cameron's plans for reform look frightening enough, and ours don't look too timid."

Mr Brown, in contrast, wants a much more aggressive attack. He sees Mr Cameron as a deeply fraudulent politician, the son of privilege, the new darling of the London media elite and a slasher of public services posturing as a "compassionate Conservative".

Amusing how readily the names Clinton, Gore and Bush can be substituted.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 10, 2005 8:55 PM