Dave Cameron

I will try to counter my opponents counter arguments in this round. Indeed Cameron had some factors assisting his rise to the leadership. However there were factors pulling against him such as his youth and inexperience. furthermore he wasn"t as popular with the Tory rank and file as Davis. My opponent is right about Davis" lacklustre speech. This contrasts with Cameron"s which was substantial and moreover delivered without notes. Cameron also gained traction from his triangulation of policies. e.g his vision for what he called a "big society" was enticing to Tories who wanted to make the party electable again. Whether one likes the big tent politics and policies of Blair and Cameron is subjective, but in any case Cameron proved to be an electable unifier in the party. His charisma and his inclusive, pragmatic, non-ideological leanings certainly show he is a good leader. (My opponent my argue his vision etc differs from what he practised once he was PM, but this was before the 2008 recession, this curtailed severely the Cameron leaderships ability to spend for the changes they campaigned for.) As for the similarity argument between Blair and Cameron, I would more contend that they may have had similar styles. e.g a fresh, stylistic, charismatic big-tent approach. When Blair was PM he increased taxes and increased expenditure on social spending to a large degree (tax credit institution, family benefits etc.) Furthermore Blair was in favour of devolution while Cameron has been more restrained on it. You can thus see basic political and economic differences between the two. One can say Cameron copies style from Blair, but many Stylish, presentable, unifying politicians have existed, such as FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan etc who held these traits but were unique in many other areas as ell. I would also like to prove wrong two of my opponents claims about Gordon Brown, leading him to make subsequent arguments about the debates question. 1 "Brown was not even an elected PM which is not attractive to the electorate." The executive and the legislature are explicitly linked in UK politics. Members of cabinet have almost always historically been members of the commons or lords. Brown was a member of the commons for two different seats. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2: "Regarding the 2010 a: "election with Brown in office (a man not liked in his role as chancellor) b: and the press swapping it's allegiance predominantly back to the Tory campaign" Why not? After Brown took the leadership following Blair"s resignation, the labour party took a two digit lead in the opinion polls over the conservatives. This indicates otherwise, and furthermore some policies were good, e.g giving the bank of England independence over interest rates. http://www.britannica.com... under the section: Cameron"s revitalisation of the Conservatives. As for the press it is well known Brown is to the economic left of Blair, such a differing stance from Murdoch was bound to see a change in support in favour of Cameron as the lesser of two evils, as well as this the change came as Cameron had a realistic chance to win, unlike former leader Michael Howard. I can further say Cameron took the Tory party back from a two digit poll lag to winning the 2010 election with his vision, inclusivity and policies, despite the popularity of Brown. Brown"s position was only hindered following the 2008 crash which of course as the incumbent he suffered for it, despite the positive feedback towards his stimulus policies in other countries. (also found in Britannica link) Even then the conservatives could only get into government through coalition, so actually I think Cameron"s humble start position and innovations within the party changed the tide. As for the Scottish Referendum I would argue the PM was fighting against a nationalist tide as for a while despite Labour"s devolution reforms Scotland was still leaning towards leaving. It was a combined effort and I"ll admit Cameron did not pull it off alone. Lastly no leadership is based on just the individual themselves. The teams they assemble play a pivotal role so I agree with my opponent that Cameron had a good team that worked wonders in scaremongering about the potential SNP-Lab coalition in 2015. This was the politically pragmatic thing to do, the fact Cameron had built a very good success story team since his leadership win is part of why he has a strong, pragmatic leadership. As for the polling industry it indicates more about people than pollsters, as many people were "shy" tory supporters who agreed with their policies in secret. This phenomenon is well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org... On a final note I would say to my opponent that whether a leader is professional or convictional does not matter. For example tony Blair was "professional" and Thatcher was "convictional" and both commanded super majorities during their tenures. Overall it can be said that Cameron"s 2015 election victory was admirable as was reflective of his effective leadership. There were many expectations in general that Labour would win that election, not just with pollsters, but also in the public vibe. Despite encountering many problems along the way, the Cameron leadership has been strong and effective in achieving it"s goals, against typically unfavourable odds. I would like to thank my opponent once again for the chance to debate this issue. It has been interesting reflecting on Cameron's leadership.