Anthony Barnett (London, OK): First reactions to watching Cameron's speech from a sofa in London and his masterful control over his party conference. He rowed back from Blairism. His repositioning was to project himself as someone who knew how to deliver what he wanted. This was his attempt to answer Brown's competence and to respond to the fashion for grit rather than rhetoric. He did it well. Ruthlessly even, he's not had a career in public relations for nothing. The image was effectively symbolised by discarding the autocue.
There was also a sense of direction to his 'how', namely empowering competent people down the food chain: elected Mayors everywhere; giving local councils led by Mayors control over their money (really?); abolishing regional quangoes that get in the way; empowering professionals in the health service; giving power to head teachers and policemen.
He also handled migration well, and used it to pull off the other repositioning he needed, away from Thatcher, discussing the language that is used, accusing Labour of being inflammatory and that way distancing himself from the Tory past (Thatcher got elected in 1979 in part by saying she understood why people felt "swamped").
He didn't take on the national question as I thought he should and might. He joked away the idea of a definition of Britishness with his neat six word answer, "Stop wasting money on pointless gimmicks!" . But it lurked still, for example when he talked about how the Tories were doing well around Blackpool and the North of England, he claimed they are "a force top be reckoned with in every part of our country" and this meant England - not Britain.
However, was it all too nice. The modern world is one of freedom and uncertainty represented by Facebook. The only problems for the country seemed to be New Labour spin. His soundbite about Brown treating people like very fools was effective and should make the news clips. But at the moment voters do not think Brown is the problem. Globalisation also, palpably, means financial risks, Northern Rock, terrorism, genocide, extreme climate change, the break up of Britain even. Nothing darkened the attractive, self-proclaimed optimism of his presentation except his interpretation of Labour.
I have always said that Cameron is electable as none of his predecessors have been. He proved this today without doubt. But why do we need to elect him? What is the big problem to which he is the answer? In time, on current form, the coherence Cameron gave to his approach is highly likely to show that the problem is indeed the Brown government and its ID cards. This is another reason why Labour needs the election now, as fast as possible.
