Has the whole world gone crazy? This David Cameron, pretender to the throne is not good enough to lead the Conservative Party or the country.

When is breaking the law deemed to be okay - if one has a plum in ones' mouth? When the Conservatives come to power they need to have the authority to help communities say no to drugs, not maybe.

Families all across the UK know about the ugly side of the drug culture, because apart from a high chance of addiction, violent crimes including gang warfare depend on guns, knives and prostitution. We need a leader who comes out against the use of drugs categorically, whatever he has or hasn't done in the past.

If the Conservative Party wants to address the inner cities it must include the issues affecting these and the other groups that delude themselves that taking drugs is fine. It isn't. Neither is addiction something that happens to the working classes exclusively! This toffee nosed impression sems to be implicit in the manipulation of the UK media. He Must be the right choice if he's got certain people backing him, if he's good looking, if he's got the media telling us that drugs don't matter...yadah, yadah, yadah!! Oh really?

Here's a little known fact: 53% of the electorate on a very recent UK teletext poll chose David Davis as the best leader for the Conservative Party. The UK is very Conservative in its leanings, but have not had a real reason to vote that way until now.

Davis fights for what's right and doesn't hide. He isn't malleable about Britain losing it's sovereignty, he wants us to keep it. He leaves the posturing to Cameron, but Davis is the real leader.

The media are manufacturing a blood bath in the Commons if Cameron becomes leader, then they get to print it. Simple. How can anyone seeking power have credibility when they dodge issues that need leadership? The realistic voters want Davis.

Thanks for the feedback - these are other comments I received personally which I think are also valid:

"Interesting read Coz.
From a critical point of view it would be interesting to see if the apparent similarities between Blair and Cameron stand up - they don't really. Additionnally, there is space for some further probing of the potential stand off between Cameron and Brown - a dour scott in the age of presentation; or is politics going back to substance over style??

What of Ken Clarke - everyone is assuming he will go off in to the wilderness. Will Cameron have him as his Chancellor if he becomes leader?

Probably points for another paper, but some scraps of food for thought."

"...remember that Cameron is also a euro-sceptic, so not that modern when it comes to Europe....I agree that it remains to be seen how he will perform in the commons, and whether he will actually be successful in shifting the party back to the centre - it was hard enough for Blair, even though by the time he became leader he had been in parliament for 11 years and had been a front bench spokesmen for four or five years. Cameron doesn't have anywhere near the same authority yet - will the party cede control to him?"

I don't agree that Davis is the best choice, but he is better than Hague, Duncain Smith and Howard. Indeed the leadership campaign has indicated a Tory party with some fight, some relevant messages, and a future: a remarkable event for a party who hired Lynton Crosby and performed one of the most appallingly bad campaigns I have ever seen.

2005 was there for the taking if the Tories hadn't looked even more belligerent, nasty, and ancient than when they lost 97. It is a real indicator that outsiders who may speak to the majority in one country are well out of there depth in others.

If Cameron is such a eurosceptic why has he been backed at least twice by Heseltine? Once before the leadership election and now during. Why has he got a seemingly pro European campaign manager in George Osborne? That’s no surprise to quite a few these days. The wool has not been pulled on those with real information. Conservatives are not belligerent and nasty, but keep trying to pretend that other political viewpoints qualify you and others as candidates for sainthood.

As for the campaign, did you know that on average there are 6000 more voters to canvass in constituencies that are considered to be conservative leaning? Of course you did, but not many voters do and that lack of knowledge in some of the electorate is being used as leverage. Puts a different complexion on the whole thing. If one wants to speak in an informed manner, it’s best to be one of the informed.

As for speaking to a nation, I prefer to be associated with those who are not an embarrassment to any Party, like Ken Livingstone. A man allowed back in to New Labour because he had them over a barrel. Red Ken does it again or should we now say ‘Tax ‘em again Ken!’ Who’s more embarrassed? One can only guess.

The conservatives have to grow up and choose nation before anything. This is the real power base. What is the point of pretending we have a democracy if delegated legislation from Brussels becomes law without parliament ever getting a look at it, let alone a vote! Thank God Ken Clarke has been knocked out, but make no pretence, a man who says he’s eurosceptic doesn’t have to mean it when the Brussels bunch try and sneak another one through the front door instead of the back. We’re not all asleep over here, just so you know!

Settle down. You clearly show why Crosby was such an embarrassment over here!

If you substitute "Latham" for "Cameron" in one of the paragraphs it reads very much like something that we could have seen in our papers in early 2004;

"Latham appears as a breath of fresh air, a blank canvass, a young family man, a charismatic speaker. Indeed some labor grandees have said he's their best orator for some time, a man fit to challenge Howard at the set piece speech. It's claimed he's the first labor leader in years who attracts rather than repels support, a leader who has people listening."

I know little about Cameron, but it seems to me that he is a modern politician in that he is a consumate PR man and a good actor.

AndrewM,

I agree. With journalism as opposed to more considered academic analysis there is always a rush to judgement and always a tendency to pick winners before the race has started.

However where Cameron is different to Latham is that he is "one of the team", and not conflicted between his want of power and his want of doing "good things". Cameron clearly wants power (he's a Tory for ^*£*s sake) and so is willing to do whatever it takes.

Also Latham could have survived as leader if he was not unwell, and was less "arrogant", owned up his policy faults, and apologised for rabid campaign of vitriol post election. Sorry is not a word in his vocabulary by the look. Latham could have won the election if he had Craig Emerson's policy mind and Kim Beazley's control. I guess he would have been Tony Blair if he had all 3 attributes.

What your analysis does highlight is that only time, performance, and connection to the centre-ground values of middle England/Australia, determine success.

Corin