David Cameron wasted no time in appointing Dominic Grieve yesterday but it might be a case of act in haste, repent at leisure. I’m picking up considerable concern in Conservative circles about Grieve’s appointment for the following reasons.
1). It unbalances the front bench: If one thinks of the Tory front bench as a see-saw, David Davis and William Hague balanced out David Cameron and George Osborne. While Cameron and Osborne were young, southern, privileged, modernisers, David Davis and William Hague were more experienced, sat for northern seats, came from humble backgrounds and were perceived as traditional Tories. Replacing Davis with Grieve, a barrister who was educated at Westminster and Oxford and sits for a Buckinghamshire constituency, upsets that balance. The problem is particularly acute because William Hague is not as visible as he could be. Who on the Tory front bench now speaks to the C2s?
2). Grieve is a passionate supporter of the European Convention on Human Rights. In his maiden speech, Grieve proposed incorporating it into English law—not an idea that is popular with many Tory MPs. Some now fear that Grieve will block any attempt to roll back ‘the human rights agenda’, something that the Tories need to do to make many of their policies work.
3). He’s another resignation risk: As Fraser wrote back in November 2007, Grieve is not above threatening to quit if he doesn’t get his way. There are worries that Grieve is now in a phenomenally strong position to threaten resignation whenever he is not getting his way as Team Cameron can not afford to lose another shadow Home Secretary.
4). Grieve’s record on Islamism is worrying: Grieve has called the 7/7 bombings “totally explicable”, he has spoken a meeting organised by the British Muslim Initiative which peddles a separatist agenda and is regarded as the leader of the pro-MCB faction within the party.
5). Is he a good enough media performer for the job? The shadow Home Secretary needs to be able to channel the country’s anger about crime and revulsion at particularly heinous acts. One wonders whether Grieve is the best man for this job. Is he capable of fronting the kind of brilliant anti-crime campaigns that Andy Coulson, who has a natural feel for this issue, likes to run?
It would be no surprise if Grieve was not shadow Home Secreatary at the next election.
Comments