Who’ll go first - Blair or Howard?
May 9th, 2005
-
Who will “win” this final contest?
With leadership issues dominating both main parties in this post-election period Hills have opened a new market on which of Michael Howard or Tony Blair will stand down first.
The current prices are 1/7 on Howard going before Blair and 4/1 against Blair going before Howard. With the pressure continuing to build on Mister Blair, as everybody now seems to be calling him, the 4/1 looks good value.
In the Labour leadership stakes, meanwhile, the best you can get on Gordon Brown is now 1/5. With the Tories David Davis is 15/8 favourite although a lot of money is reported to be going on William Hague - now at 16/1.
An intriguing new spread market has just been opened by Sporting Index’s HiLo off-shoot on how old Michael Howard’s replacement as Tory leader will be.
The current spread is 50.5-52 years old. So if you think that they will go for George Osborne (33), David Cameron (38), Liam Fox (43) or even a return for William Hague (44) then a sell would produce a nice profit. If, on the other hand, you see this going to David Davis (56), Sir Malcolm Rifkind (58) or even the Ken Clark (64) then there could be big profits in a buy bet.
A lot depends in this race on what the new rules are because if the Tory membership has the final say then Davis looks a sure winner.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
A source on the NEC tells me that Christine Shawcroft has long made a habit of calling our leader ‘Mister Blair’.
1. So?
Mr Smithson any odds on Howard remaining leader? Sounds mad and yet Hezza has already said he should stay until the Euro referendumIf he did, and they won, would surely be awfull tempting to stay on, for the good of the Nation etc….. Views Mr Smithson?????
i dont think blair will go for a while because i dont think mr brown wants the job just yet. Let Mr blair take the flack for the ni increases and big changes to pensions as well as some other things and then let bown be the nations saviour.
i think brown will try something similar to what he did with the general election campaign
as for the tory leader my money is going on redwood
Am I right in saying that it’s very difficult for them to actually force Blair out and that the motion couldn’t be done until their conference in October?
If that’s the case and Labour are determined to get rid of him it could come down to whoever can elect a sucessor the quickest following the october conferences seeing as the tories have a similar timescale planned.
Redwood? He does not appear to have widespread support among either MPs or activists. He is not a “unity candidate” who might have a caretaker role. He has not had any impact as shadow minister for red tape or whatever he is. He is not a moderniser about whom people might think “Not my cup of tea but we need to reform ourselves to get elected”. So I am not sure how he could possibly get it.
7 He maty stand in the hope of raising his Profile/Gaining Promotion but i doubt even he would do so in genuine expectation of Victory.
Redwood? Why not? On the principle of Buggin´s turn, of course…. Would he really be worse than any of the others?
I suppose it all depends what Hague’s opinion of Davis is - he is probably the only person who could credibly be seen as both a stopDavis candidate and someone who had value in his own right (and be popular in the party at large).
Why doesn’t Rosindell stand?
4. probably it’s what Brown would like to do, but it would be interesting to see what he’ll do if the Campaign Group will be able to challenge the leadership this autumn.
Redwood? LOL The first Vulcan party leader! Betting on Rifkind is daft enough, but if people are putting money on Redwood I wish I was a bookmaker!
I’m starting to think that whether Blair goes in the near future or not depends on whether the malcontents on the backbenchers go for a trial of strength before the summer recess. If the Campaign Group or the Cook/Dobbo tendency smell blood, a defeat in the Commons (or even a majority of single figures) on any piece of controversial legislation may make the pressure to remove Blair irresistible. He could announce his intention to resign in the summer and Brown could have a stately procession to a coronation at Conference, even if he were challenged b the hard left.
11 Rosindell is a good candidate, but our so-called impartial media would have a field day, condemning the Tories for selecting a populist leader.
9 - yes, he really would be worse than any of the others. They are a pretty uninspiring bunch but (if I must find things in their favour) Rifkind has some gravitas, Yeo offers a modernising agenda, Davis is a b’stard but is a firebrand who would galvanise the core vote, Fox is smooth and Cameron is fresh. Redwood has no obvious qualities. He has no charisma, no talent, no agenda to reform the party and the fact he was trecherous to Major would give a licence to everyone to be as indisciplined as they fancy (ref. IDS).
11 and 15 - could somebody retrieve my jaw from the floor and rush me to A&E for emergency re-attachment surgery? Thanks.
You can back Redwood at 109 to 1 on Betfair - only £2 but would any body be daft enough to waste more than that!
I do hope we dont have more than about 18 months of the Tory party pulling iself to bits over the leadership!!!!!
Blair going early would benefit Labour in thye short term but the “Brown Bounce” would not be long lasting - a year or 2 at the most. If Brown took over next year he would be in trouble by 2009, Labour’s best bet is paradoxically for Blair to sray on for as long as possible.
18. Don’t be a spoilsport. Four years of tory strife wouldn’t bore me in the least.
Who goes first? 1/7 Howard is a bad bet. When the dust settles the tories will realise that he is so superior to the rest, he must stay for 3 years plus. 4/1 Blair is also poor. He said he will serve a full term and he will (if he doesn’t, I will shoot as many of Cook, Short et.al. as I can before they get me). I’d say even money both, would make more sense.
17. I said it as a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
19 - I agree, Bullseye. Why is everyone coming out saying Blair is an electoral liability now when it doesn’t really matter? He will never fight another general election and will not even fight local elections for another year. Perhaps there is a particularly tricky parish council by-election in the offing in Roughton.
What these malcontent MPs are really saying is that they do not like his policy agenda. To be clear, that is the policy agenda he won the election on (albeit not all that convincingly). I do not support Labour but those MPs should shut up and grow up.
Whatever else you can old against Blair he is a three times election winner. In the latest campaign he played a poor hand brilliantly and to come out with a majority of 66 seats is a major achievement.
The amazing way that the campaign become Brown/Blair and the final week strategy of warning of the “one in ten” were just two master-strokes.
Has Brown got the same skills? Maybe - maybe not.
The Tories and Lib Dems will be delighted to see the back of him. In my view there is nobody better to lead Labour.
I think Mike has a point. When he’s gone how long before the minnows of the party who are again passed over then start on Brown but without the shield of Blair? I also agree that the Labour campaign has been much underestimated in much the same way that the Crosby campaign has been overestimated.
The only point you miss Mike are the large number of Labour party members and MP’s who prefer opposition. They see it as somehow more worthy. Some of them just can’t forgive Tony Blair for winning so often. If Blair is forced out there might be a real day of reckoning for these malcontents
TB is a winner. He has good looks, the trembling lip, the easy turn of phrase and is comfortably the most accomplished politician of the age.
What will he achieve in his third term? What did Mrs Thathcher? What could anyone? He’s done what he was going to do—I think he’ll be mainly remebered for winning 3 GEs in a row, rather than what he did with them. He’s substantially increased the proportion of the GDP the state takes, and spent it wisely/foolishly (delete to taste).
From the labour party’s point of view, the longer he stays, the better. GB (or AN Other) could then be seen to ‘ride to the rescue’ and have the benfit of a honeymoon period.
But why on earth he should want to stay on remains a mystery.
Howard will go first. Labour will regret the day they get rid of Blair, once GB’s honeymoon has worn off. As for Tory leadership, Rifkind is too passe, Fox lacks judgement, Yeo is too compromised, the modernisers too young. As for Alan Duncan, while I would be perfectly happy with his leadership the party I suspect would not. Unlike 2001 when Portillo was probably the best candidate, now there is no clear choice. In the absence of such, I would go for David Davis, provided he can bring a moderniser on board as a running mate. BTW, Iain Dale (sensibly backs DD, knowing DD is good to his friends, he will sort him out with a safe seat) has an interesting post on the leadership issue.
According to the London Evening Standard, Thamesmead MP John Austin wants to do an Anthony Meyer and run as a “stalking horse” - he needs 70 other MPs to sign up, though! Is the salon des refusés that big (and that dim)?
Tim Yeo on BBC this morning.. looked as if hes going as candiate for tory leader. Focusing on compasion and environment
I don’t know what planet the likes of Yeo and Alan Duncan are from. There is no way they can win. So far as I can see Malcolm Rifkind is the only figure on the Centre-Left of the party who has any chance of winning. If the party does want to ’stop-Davis’ then I don’t know who else they can go for.
29 - Apparently the rebels had around 62 signatures in the last Parliament, and because of the slash in the number of Labour MPs, the quota needed drops to around 70.
30 - “Focusing on compasion and environment”
That’ll play well in the Shires
I thought that under Labour Party rules a leadership contest when the party is in government can only be triggered by an explicit card vote at the Annual Conference. The 20% trigger for MPs only applies in opposition. Is this correct?
The criticism of Blair appears to be that Lab won a majority of ‘only’ 66. This for a party that was widely thought incapable of winning any sort of majority after defeat in 1992, and indeed pre-Blair hadn’t won any sort of comfortable victory since 1966. It really is pretty extraordinary……..by contrast Wilson lost an election that should have been won in 1970 and barely squeeked home in 1974 but was allowed to choose the timing of his departure. How times change.
I also do not accept that Blair is the electoral liability that is being portrayed. He is definitely viscerally hated by a minority - the destiny of any third term PM - but his overall ratings as PM were positive. Labour still holds many seats in typical Tory territory. I do not think this would be the case but for Blair’s impact. The Tories are in truth barely closer to regaining power than they were 8 years ago - a few more seats, up a percentage point or so, but no nearer to staking out a political platform that threatens Blair’s domination of the centre ground.
As for the Brown succession, I do not see it happening until after any possible euro referendum. Does anybody have a link to the referendum dates in other EU countries ? Who is after France & the Netherlands ? I think Blair will stick around until either the constitution is defeated elsewhere or until the UK vote (late 2006 ?)
Equally, I would not be surprised, if the economic background is favourable, if Brown calls a snap election when & if he finally takes over - seeking a personal mandate, stamps his authority, turns honeymoon period to immediate electoral advantage etc. A general election in 2007 ?
I agree with 31. I also agreed with the Economist when it said that Yeo came over as seedy and overbearing (the red-faced corpulence doesn’t help). I particularly dislike the patronising way he speaks - just like the dreadful Saira Khan on The Apprentice, he thinks other people are so stupid that he needs to speak very, very slowly. As for his accent, I’m reminded of what Alan Clark said about Leon Brittan - not even Etonians drawl that much. Even Rikfind’s Morningside is preferable to Yeo’s voice. Give me David Davis’ classless accent (and manner) anyday.
That said, if Messrs Osborne or Cameron acquit themselves well in a position such as Shadow Chancellor or Shadow Home Secretary, their education (St Pauls and Eton, respectively) shouldn’t be held against them.
34. John O, the campaign group said they’re reading the rules to understand if they could use the 20% trigger for MPs (and Glenda Jackson has still to read the electoral manifesto).
24. Mike, also Thatcher was a 3 times election winner, but then she become a liability for her party. Blair is a great campaigner (muche better than Brown), but I think that without him Labour would have got a 100+ majority this time.
29 and 32 - I am not clear what Labour rebels really plan to achieve with a “stalking horse”. The point of a stalking horse is supposed to be to embolden a serious contender by showing that there is a good base of “anyone but the incumbent” support. That was why Meyer was quite sensible and effective.
Brown isn’t a man for crazy risks when he can just wait and be guaranteed the leadership, and Blair isn’t a man to simply fold at the sight of a few dozen awkward squad MPs. I wouldn’t be surprised if Blair took bloody revenge on any rebel who lacked 100% support in his/her constituency. It would be quite amusing to watch a bunch of useless flat-earthers being deselected.
I see there are also doubts over whether you can in fact force a ballot when Labour is in power.
John O [34] - that’s what I thought, too. When I checked on the paper’s website they seemed to be backtracking…
Aloysius [35] - I’d go with your last paragraph. A comparison that I haven’t seen made, but works in terms of papabile status, is Eden and Churchill - and Eden went to the country immediately. And of course if the economy is misbehaving, Gordon will be the first to tell Tony he’s just got to stay
Back in power for just four days and all we have is the Labour Party in fighting like never before - they really are nothing but a bunch of grown up schoolkids.
Out of the probable candidates for the conservative leadership I think that Malcolm Rifkind would be the best. He would appeal to the centre which they need to do. My fear with Davis is that he would only get the core vote out and not the swing voters which the tories need. In any case PMQs will not be as enjoyable when Howard goes! Hes has some very good spats with Tony across the dispatch box.
38.” I wouldn’t be surprised if Blair took bloody revenge on any rebel who lacked 100% support in his/her constituency. It would be quite amusing to watch a bunch of useless flat-earthers being deselected.”
and the rebels supporters will start to call deselction votes in all constituencies held by blairites. It would be like a “civil war” in the party. Not a good move.
40 What did you expect Geoffrey? The dissenters get their four days in the sun (or should that be “The Sun”) but then cower timidly when TB lays down the law on Wednesday. All the normal nonsense from the malcontents. Blair will ease slightly left, to ensure enough stay on board, GB ensures all the attack dogs are on hold, let’s TB lose referendum ballot some time next summer and then is annointed at Conference in Oct 06. Next GE May/Jun 09 and off we go again. In the meantime, Tory faithful elect DD but patricians agitate in background when no movement in polls. Maybe another putsch? You wouldn’t put it past them.
40 - Congratulations on the win in Lincoln, Geoffrey.
Richard - The problem I have with Davis is that he still seems to be an unknown quantity. I don’t feel like I really know what he stands for. If its just re-heated Thatcherism then I don’t think its going to widen our appeal and I don’t think its the kind of party I want to be part of.
Agree with everything you say about Yeo, I find it bizarre that he thinks he has any chance of winning.
I know that users of this site don’t have a very high opinion of him but I cannot see past Malcolm Rifkind, probably with Cameron as deputy.
Tabman, you beat me to it
Re Labour Party leadership rules, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4529713.stm
46 - well, you have to recognise magnanimity where you find it, don’t you?
The behaviour of some of the Labour ‘rebels’ is appaling. It must be a bit galling for Blair to have to listen to Bob M-A whining about Blair (nearly!) costing him his seat. As if he would ever have won Medway in the first place without Blair. Is it really too much to ask these MP’s to show a bit of gratitude and a bit of loyalty?
48 Frankly, Max, yes! These are the people that would prefer permanent opposition, so they can rail against the system, rather than the decision-making of government. It’s politics for politicians who never really want to leave their anti-Thatcher local government sloganising in the mid-80s.
IA @46. I think the BBC is wrong on this one. See page 17 of this learned paper by Dr Stuart Thomson of Aberdeen University. He is quite categorical that a challenge to a Labour Prime Minister can only be initiated by a card vote at Annual Conference.
http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/1999/thomson.pdf
43. I generally agree but, providing the economic situation was favourable, I don’t know why Brown would wait three years before going to the country. Given the presumable ‘bounce’ in the polls upon taking office I don’t see why he wouldn’t call an immediate election - why wait three years at the mercy of ‘events’. He could justifiably claim he wanted a personal mandate. Out of interest, when do the revised constituency boundaries kick in ?
Brown, for all the dour exterior, has a penchant for the grand gesture.
42 - I don’t think they would. You can’t seriously deselect somebody for not being disloyal enough. Brown would probably support any move by Blair to crush the rebels - he is canny enough to know that most of these people are just no-hopers who will equally turn on him if and when he takes over just as soon as it becomes clear that he has no intention of giving them junior ministerial jobs either. Blair would not move on big(ish) fish like Dobson - it is people like John Austin (who I have never heard of until today) who would be for the chop.
48.”As if he would ever have won Medway in the first place without Blair. ”
I think that Labour would have won the 1997 even without Blair.
btw 20 years ago who would have thought that Medway would have elected an MP like Bob M-A for 3 times?
Any odds on CK yet?
One of the main tipping lines has just put up William Hague. Ladbrokes have suspended betting.
James (15) observes tht “Redwood has no obvious qualities. He has no charisma, no talent, no agenda to reform the party and the fact he was trecherous to Major would give a licence to everyone to be as indisciplined as they fancy (ref. IDS).”
If that is true, why on earth did the Tory Party inflict him on the electors of Wokingham? And even more to the point, why did the electors of Wokingham re-elect him?
He surely has all the virtues that embody the present-day Tory Party.
52.”
Blair would not move on big(ish) fish like Dobson - it is people like John Austin (who I have never heard of until today) who would be for the chop. ”
they would probably make the same. some little fish.
Maybe they’re sure enough in their seats. And some of them are old enough to retire.
But I think that nobody won’t try to deselect nobody. The rebels will calm down.
Andrea @ 53. In fact Rochester and Chatham (Medway’s nearest incarnation) was a classical marginal seat held by Labour 1945-59, and then from 1964-70, and again 1974-79. And although NO ONE can be quite like B M-A, its most recent Labour MPs (Ann Kerr, and IIRC Bob Bean) were on the party’s left.
58. John O. Ok, I made my gaffe of the day. I didn’t look back to results previous 1983.
Hard luck Geoffrey….and after the charm and elegance you showed to your opponents!
It would be slightly ironic if Hague became leader - the whole plan for the Howard candicacy in 1997 was to stop the rot, make a limited recovery in 2001 … and handover to Hague!
4 years after plan…
John O - the BBC website says what you say if you go down far enough. It’s full of sloppy journalism…
IA @63. Thanks. Yes, I took umbrage at the first half of the report and didn’t wait to read the small print!
45 - Max - I just don’t see the appeal of Rifkind. Another prominent ex Thatcher / Major minister like Howard, with all the baggage that goes with that.
If we choose a Scot to fight Brown and Kennedy, wouldn’t we limiting our appeal, creating the impression of a Scottish elite dominating British politics post-devolution.
Howard will go first, and I would imagine he’ll be gone by the end of the year While he is there it feels like he’s lingering and what is still a heavy electoral defeat means he lacks credibility. As for Blair, he always performs well under pressure. He will answer the challenge to his leadership and lead the party into this potentially awkward referrendum (assuming the French vote Oui). If all other European countries pass the constitution then it is highly likely Britain will - if the YES campaign conducts itself half-decently. Once that is one, Blair can set his eyes on retirement and the new leader, who by then may not be Brown (he too is aging) should be free to build up towards a 2009 election.
Bet on Howard at 1/7 if you must. But my money is going on David Cameron at 9/1. The Tories need a young charismatic leader, and whilst Cameron only really satisfies part one that criteria, i think he is the best they have.
I cannot believe Hague would come back! Its a serious pay-cut for a start!
Massive money for Hague. Down to 2-1 with paddy power. I was on Alan Duncan at 25-1. Reckon I’ve done my money though.
35 All. You make good comparisons with Wilson so why is Blair under attack? Because Wilson at least made a pretence of trying to be collegiate. Ok he still did pretty much what he wanted but he tickled his Collaegue’s egos made them feel important, pretened to take them seriously etc notice by having marathon Cabinet Sessions. Maybe because he never enjoyed the Ginormous first two Blair Landslides, although 66 was pretty big. Still…..
TB on the other hand doesn’t bother to give his Cabinet full WAr Advice. Governs from the Sofa brings inunelected mates like Falconer and Derry. Makes clear his CAbinet are there only as glorified Civil Servants to implement the will of Number 10, not to develop Policy Propsals of their won. To top it off he seerially bungles reshuffles managing to annoy everyone even those he’s suppposed to be promoting. Finaslly he betrays even the loyal Millburn and Frank Field.
While he was invincible these People had to bide their time. Now he’s in trouble and looks for Friends, there’s blunkett and er that’sit. Old saying be careful whom you kick on the way up because they’ll be waitingto kick you on the way down Again.
I think John Redwood and Andrew Rosindell would make perfect Tory leaders, ideally in rotation with Boris Johnson.
The Labour leadership ‘debate’ is IMHO froth. Nothing will happen before Blair and Brown want it to, for the very good reasons that other posts have mentioned. As for rebels getting us loyalists deselected - it simply wouldn’t happen. At my last reselection, the number of opposing votes was zero. The people who would support deselection of loyalists nearly all resigned years ago when we changed Clause 4.
Was Bob Seely very dissappointed when he realised he’d lost Nick?
P.S Good to see Oliver Letwin keep his seat. Is a return to the bakbenches on the cards though.
68. Nick, you are the wisest man on the site - by a mile. Do you happen to know, by the way, how many current MPs were against the abolition of clause 4?
68.”As for rebels getting us loyalists deselected - it simply wouldn’t happen”
Is there any chance that the rebels will be deselected (or at least that they’ll face a deselection vote)?
(Considering her lately erratic behaviour, Clare Short’s reaction would be a must see)
64 - John T My views may be coloured by the fact I am a Scot (living in Scotlands only Tory constituency!). I think Rifkind has quite a broad appeal coming as he does from the centre of the party and would help us to win back seats outwith the South East. Despite serving in past governments I don’t think he is divisive a figure as MH was. I just cannot see DD’s appeal outside of our core vote.
43 “Blair will ease slightly left, to ensure enough stay on board,”
*No he won’t nothing he’s done suggests that, and he’s already signalled a shift RIGHT. Blairites are saying they lost too much to the Tories.
It’s very clear there will be no concessions to the left of centre as long as blair is in power.
John Bercow or Eric Pickles would be my choice. Have to say that Douglas Hogg is probably the Tory Party’s most effective back-bencher. As for the Blair to Brown nonsense: it matters little as they are both becoming grubbier by the day. Brown’s saving of Blair during the election campaign will have endeared him to few of those who deserted the party for the LibDems, and even fewer of those who went back to the Tories - if anyone did, that is. Could it not be that former Tory abstentions voted this time around and former Labour voters just abstained. I don’t think many flop between Labour and Tory parties any more.
I would like to see a new face in charge, someone not tainted by the Major years. So that rules out Rifkind who is from the same mould as Major and Howard, and also Redwood who has “something of the asylum about him”!
My choice would probably be from David Davis, David Cameron or Theresa May.
Forget Alan Duncan, Tim Yeo, Ken Clarke or Hague. Hague doesnt want it; the party doesnt want Clarke; no-one has heard of Tim Yeo (despite what he thinks); and Alan Duncan…….well!
The shame of Howard announcing so soon that he will go is that it probably doesnt give Cameron a chance this time to establish his credentials. I therefore suspect that we will see a final of Rifkind vs Davis, and Davis will win.
Re. 51, I remember Heseltine saying that, had he won the Tory leadership contest of 1990, he would have asked the Queen for a General Election so that he could seek his own mandate.
RE 75: Then get behind Davis and get his backing in picking up a seat for next time. Bad luck by the way in S&C. What are your reflections on the result and do you plan to have another crack at going for Parliament?
75.”and Alan Duncan…….well!”
conclude the sentence, please.
If it goes to the members then Alan Duncan has no chance which is a great shame
77 - I probably would back Davis. He has vision and the “normality” factor that Hague and even Howard lack.
What are the chances of Blair actually winning a fourth term in 2013? Let us say that he steps down in three years time, to be replaced by Gordon. General Election in 2009 produces a hung Parliament. (or worse a Tory win). Labour says to Blair: “Please come back Tone, all is forgiven”. Blair returns and wins again in 2013. (After all, in 2013 he would only be 60. That’s not old by modern standards.)
Is this a nightmare scenario, or what?
What rik could be referring to is an old kiss and tell story I remember reading in the MoS (my mother gets it) by an ex boyfriend, which would no doubt be repeated in full accross the media. More seriously, there are questions over his oil trading in the early 90s (to do with the Gulf War and working for Marc Rich) and over a deal he did to buy a council house, for which he had to leave government (read about it in Gyles Brandreth’s diary). In short he probably has too much of a colourful past to be a future leader.
81. And what does Tone pay his mortgage with. He’ll be away in America by then reaped the fruits of his Labour (if you’ll excuse the pun)
I think defenders of Blair (23, 35 etc) on this thread, particularly the unremitting 6th form rhetoric of “John Riley” on the subject of how 66 is not a small majority, are being either ludicrously naive or, more likely, disingenuous. The basis of their arguments seems to be that a 66-seat majority is not small, a fact which is true in the context purely of itself. However, what critics fearfully or gloatingly but nonetheless rightly see, is that this situation does strike at the very heart of the matter, namely the inherent fragility of the so-called ‘New Labour’ project. Blair has never been Labour, and Labour has never been Blairite. A majority of people in his own party, up to and perhaps including Brown, are thoroughly uncomfortable with Blair’s agenda, particularly after Iraq. In a historical sense, his only relevance to the party which he nominally serves is that he is someone who can deliver large majorities. It follows therefore that with every diminished majority, his relevance as a political figure in the Labour Party also diminishes. There is no end game beyond majorities for either the party or Blair himself.
I am not saying his place in the history books won’t be significant, or that he will be deposed before the year-end (though I hope so). However to downplay the impact of such a reduced majority on his government is a nonsense. Blair cannot govern with a majority of less than 100, and whatever happens this will find him out.
83. Mortgage - what Mortgage? A couple of years on the rubber chicken dinner circuit, plus his wife’s immoral earnings as a lawyer, and he’ll be loaded. Plus he’ll be refreshed and ready for a comeback.
“Blair II - this time it’s personal”
(Obviously this is all tongue-in-cheek, with just a hint of genuine fear of the bogeyman)
84 - Also there is a reason why small majorities tend to enforce some amount of discipline upon Governing parties; ie. the alternative of an elecion is likely to mean them losing their seat.
Most of those opposed to Blair believe that Brown would lead them to a crushing election victory.
I think David Cameron would be a great leader.
Have also heard on the grapevine that Alan Duncan is almost certainly going to throw his hat into the ring too.
82 - I am not referring to anything in the past - I just dont think he is leadership material
Changing the subject, it’s nice to see that in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein lost their seat in the Short Strand (where the McCartneys live) to Alliance.
Agree with Rick (commiserations on S&C allthough I suspect you did better than some of the LD’s on the site predicted), Alan Duncan just doesn’t appear to have the leadership qualities required.
As I said above all I know about Davis is that he’s on the right of the party and seems to be a bit of a hanger and a flogger. I’m sure there is more to him than that but I would like to see what else he stands for before voting (if i get to!) for him in a leadership contest.
Does anyone have any anecdotal evidence of this bizarre idea that Davis is “attractive”. On BBC news the other day they interviewed someone on the street in his constituency, who came out with the immortal line that Davis would be “the ladies’ choice”. Since then, my girlfriend’s mother has said the same thing, while one paper labelled him as a candidate with “matinee star looks”. I just can’t believe it myself. He looks just like a normal, perhaps marginally better-than-average, mid-50s businessman to me. Anyone differ?
I think the Tories ought to inverse the current leadership contest rules, and let the membership choose a shortlist of, say, three candidates. The parliamentary party could then elect from there.
88.”I am not referring to anything in the past - I just dont think he is leadership material ”
Thanks. I got a different impression from your first post and I wanted a sort of explanation before drawing a wrong conclusion.
Btw, I agree he’s not PM material.
89 - It was Sean. But another set of bad results for the UUP (I see Ken McGinnis lost his seat) and another set of good results for the DUP and IRA/Sinn Fein.
Its very sad to see whats happened to the Ulster Unionists in general and David Trimble in particular.
Well done on the results in Hertfordhire. Does it include the seat of Kerry ‘I’ll only win by 2000 this time’ Pollard?
88 are you related to Richard Willis who was elected MP for Sutton and Cheam?
Image is (almost) everything in winning elections and David Davis, in my opinion, hasn’t demonstated that he can inspire a nation, nor do any of the other top contenders.
David Davis isn’t a particularly powerful public performer. He’s OK on a one to one interview, but nothing special.
Tim Yeo would be an utter disaster. He looks barely awake. He has a face of a sad droppy-eyed dog.
Liam Fox looks too self-assured, too slick maybe, doesn’t make that connection.
George Osbourne has youth, which I think would play well with creating a new image for the party.
Malcolm Rifkind looks too much a boffin (Clive Sinclair anyone?)
Ken Clarke can’t be considered because his views on Europe are the opposite to most of the party.
Caroline Spellman looks promising for me, looking from a public perspective.
The Tories need to redefine the party’s “personality.” Voters look at parties in an emotional way more than on policy alone. Like a person, the party has to make people feel good about it to be liked.
In my view another middle aged man in a grey suit is not a good move.
The party needs a new identity. A woman at the top, or an ethnic minority leader, or a younger looking leader would quickly change perceptions of the “nasty party.” A more caring inclusive image is needed to reach beyond the core vote. The party has to SHOW that it has changed.
91 - My girlfriend said the same thing! She said he had a bit of a ‘Michael Douglas thing going on’! It worried me.
91.”He looks just like a normal, perhaps marginally better-than-average, mid-50s businessman to me.”
that’s perfect. He wants to become PM, not Mister UK.
Could not agree more Printz.
Yes. Pollard lost by 1500, and we won 9 out of 11 seats in Herts (and were about 5000 votes away from making it 11 out of 11).
FPTP exaggerates the swing against the UUP, which will still retain a substantial local government presence. At least Sinn Fein didn’t do as well as they had been predicting. It was sad to see Trimble lose by 5,000. His downfall is entirely due to this government’s indulgence of the IRA.
Icarus, do I detect a hint of bitterness towards Richard for pulling off a very respectable result in Sutton & Cheam?
84 - agree.
Blair groupies talking a good game about deselection of his critics - dream on.
I don’t often agree with Bruce Anderson, but
‘Never has victory yielded such bitterness. Politically, the PM is an unburied corpse.
Mr Blair has not only lost his ability to run an effective government. He has lost the will.’
right.
99. Made my night seeing Anne Main beat Kerry Pollard in St Albans. Was also very pleasing to see Grant Shapps oust Melaine Johnson in welwyn Hatfield too.
I did think it was unbelievably daft of Kerry Pollard to say in advance that he was going to win the seat. Just hope the success in the South starts spreading Northwards!
89. No they didn’t SF/IRA Hold West Belfast, the SDLP the South and the DUP the rest.
Does anyone know how many women were elected for the relative parties? Don’t think we increased our number of women by very much.
The party needs a new identity. A woman at the top, or an ethnic minority leader, or a younger looking leader would quickly change perceptions of the “nasty party.”
Hmm. Electing a woman as leader. Now where have i seen that before …?
As for an ethnic minority leader. Just like that!
103 - Sean was talking about the council elections.
103 - i assume we’re talking local elections
I see Beverly Hughes has been brought back in as Chilldrens Minister. Seems like a very odd decision.
Yes, Short Strand falls within East Belfast, and makes up part of Pottinger DEA. Sinn Fein won it in 2001, and lost this time.
84. Peering through your rhetoric (no easy matter), I perceive that you believe 67 is not a working majority. I am surprised you find my disagreement so disagreeable. Not because we won, is it?
TB does love to stick two fingers up. Adonis at education, Hughes at children and ex commie Reid at Defence. Even more surprising is Lord Drayson (he of funding fame) at Defence. Poor Nick has not been rewarded (which strikes me as being a bit unfair), unless he becomes a PPS. I heard May on Today, she is decent but not leadership material. I am always impressed by Spelman whenever I heard her during the campaign though. Easily the most talented of the female MP’s at the moment.
BTW, the link for government ministers is:
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page2988.asp
Just seen what looks like the full list of Ministerial appointments - there’s no mention of anything, not even the most junior of junior whippers, for Nick Palmer
;). Blair should resign for this alone.
Andrew, I think Caroline Spelman is indeed impressive. She deserves go a lot further. OTOH, I am not an admirer of Theresa May.
Amdrew Milne @ 111 - Clearly time for a “Tories for Palmer” campaign
It’ll be interesting to see the make up of the next Tory shadow cabinet. It would be good to have Rifkind and Hague back and Caroline Spelman should be given one of the top jobs.
116 - Max - a Shadow Cabinet of all the talents (incl Clarke, Rifkind, Hague etc) would make mincemeat of this new Labour lot!
my comment about redwood was, as a labour spporter, something i would want. Blair wont go for a while there is a lot of unpopular stuff that needs doing. brown will let him do that let him take the flak, then ride o the rescue, why would he want the right wing press on his back so soon.
if i was a tory i would push for a very left wing gender and aim for a hung parliamnet next time. let that fall apart and then go with a slightly right wing agneda for the win whne people would prefer tax cuts.
in my opinion the lib dems had the worst election. the seats they won of lab will return when the war and balir are not an issue. they have to move to the right as lab will move slightly to the left to firm up there core, other wise they will ose there con/lib seats to the tories.
Richard - I think these people have a responsibility to do their bit for the party. If everyone pulls there weight, there is the nucleus of a very good team. Any thoughts on who should be shadow chancellor?
119 - SHadow Chancellor should be Clarke while Brown is still in post. Most people would see him as an equal to Brown. He is the only one with that credibility. Hague as shadow Home Sec. Rifkind as Shadow Foreign Sec. It is a shame Soames wont stay on because he was great as Shadow Defence Sec. At least he knows about the subject unlike “Buff” Hoon!
New Shadow Chancellor should be Rifkind (has gravitas and experience)
New Foreign Secretary should be Hague (solid on the War and Europe, speaks well)
New Home Secretary should be Letwin (v.good there before he went to the Treasury)
121 - What, the inventor of the fantasy island? The tories could have done without being saddled with that! Getting good reviews in the Guardian is not quite the same thing as having done “a very good job”. Compared with Davis’ successes he can’t compare.
Letwin - should do Health or something cuddly like that!
Richard Willis @ 117. What like you made mincemeat of Paul Burstow?
BTW an entry for the Polly Toynbee award: From Yasmin Alibhai Brown in the Indy today
I quote “The election ushers in the first “black” Tory MP, Adam Afriye (half Ghanian and half English) and Shailash Vara, the Ugandan Asian who has done time as deputy chairman for a party which has repudiated equality and diversity policies and produced a string of racist politicians including Winston Churchill.”
“So is this nasty party shedding its repulsive past? Not a bit of it. These results, for me, are a damning manifestation of the splintering of the anti-racist struggle, a triumph of uncle Tomism and worse. To witness the son of illegal Jewish immigrants strategically mobilising mob instincts against immigrants was bad enough. To then have the sons of an African and Ugandan Asian reiterate these obscene prejudices made me suicidal.” (Don’t you just love that line)
(It gets better)
The say it isn’t racist to control immigration. But they know how a racist stence rises when they flash such statements across the land. The victors deserve to be despised by egalitarians and people who believe in human rights, just as Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are by millions of Americans of colour.” (So every EM must be a left winger)
Did someone mention Duncan’s dodgy council house deals? Just seen Christinen Hamilton admitting that when Maggie brought the deal in, she bought a flat for £4,500 and sold for £45,000 in the same week!
117. Why didn’t they do so when they were in government then?
does no one else think that the lib dems made a big error by going to the left of labour. they could have won lab seats without the 50% tax etc, in the south west there was a swing against them, i really can’t see them holding on to places like leeds north west with brown and no iraq.
I wondered how long it would take for the Rick-baiting to begin. I think most people can see that he achieved a very respectable result (how many people were forcasting a Lib Dem to Tory swing). One of the few unedifying aspects of this site is attacks made on those who stand for national elections by those who don’t.
i agree max even as a lab supporter who probally has very little in common with rick, it aint right to rub it in. having seen how hard it is not to win he doesn’t need everyone going on at him. running for office is a ver expensive tiring and stressful time. he deserves respect not abuse.
Andrew, that’s probably even nastier than anything than Polly would write. More than one asian Conservative has commented to me about how they are accused of “betraying” their people by joining the Conservatives. There is a curious coincidence of views between racists on the extreme right, and anti-racists on the Left. Both of them believe that if you’re not white, you’re obliged to be on the hard Left of the political spectrum.
Tom Watts. There wasn’t a swing against the LDs in the south. In the South East they increased their vote share by 1.9% (net loss of 2 seats), 0.5% in the SW (net gain of 1 seat) and 4.5% in London (net gain of 2 seats). Their mistake was underestimating the Conservative core vote strategy in some marginal seats. There is no dobt that the Conservative strategy had some success in playing the electoral system to their advantage, but that is not the same as having a swing against the LDs in general.
consodering this will be the best chance they will have in a gneration to win seats of the tories this really is a disastr for them in my opinion. i think they will be below 5o seats com the next election.
What shocking dreadful nonsense from Yasmin Alibhai Brown. Typical leftie nonsense.
The article goes on to slag off the people who voted for Peter Law in Bleanau Gwent for being sexist and criticises the new crop of EM labour MP’s for being unprepared to speak for their community (a frankly patronising comment in itself). She nearly slags off GG as being a white bigot crushing black hope, before saying he is okay because of the war.
When you’ve got friends like these, who needs enemies. This gets back to my problem with many commentators on the left, which is there authoratarian tendencies and their tendency to resort to abuse to put their arguments across. I remember a great conservative poster with a black briton, with it going “Labour says he is Black, we say he is British.” It sums it all up I think.
CHeers Max - comments like Paul lloyds really are not worth rising to (most of the time!). People like him can hide behind relative obscurity whereas Nick P and I put our necks, wallets and lives above the parapet!
re my 126. Should anyone think Mrs Hamiltons sharpish practice is any way associated with Neil, wrong, it was before his time. She learned all she knew from one Gerald Nabarro, to whom she was secretary long, long ago. Anyone old enough to remember Nabarro will understand that he alone would be sufficient reason for my never voting tory, even to save my life.
Rik, are you going to stand again? You should do, you achieved a good swing against the Lib Dem. BTW, you called it right on Reading East.
No problem - noticed there was also a swing to the Tories in Carshalton but not in Twickenham. Is there much of a difference in demographics between the seats in South West London.
Very good result in Orpington as well.
The paraphrasing of Yasmin Alibhai Brown generates one accurate sentiment, namely the one about a particular ‘white bigot’!
Tom. normally I would agree with you - and I don’t think what I said was abusive anyway - but Rik has demonstrated a continual contempt of people from other parties on this site. He accused (although backtracked later) his opponent of misuse of public funds, he continually boasted about how he was going to win and generally showed little in the way of humility. It is obvious from his comments above that he is unable to recognise that people from other parties may be able or skilled even if he disagrees with their POV or actions. I am no fan of NuLab myself, but I feel it is right to recognise that they have in their ranks some of the most dominant and skilful politicians of this generation.
If Rik had acted with more humility, like Jon Underwood or Charles Anglin, both of whom contributed, but never made wild claims of impending victory, no-one would be able or want to taunt him in doing something that we all recognise to be a valiant or worthy thing. Perhaps now he will learn that candidates should keep their own council on whether they are going to win or not and leave the mouthing off to us partisans.
Reading West was also a good result considering the big swing to Labour last time.
yeah george galloway is a total t****r, i really do hate that man. they way he played his pro islam anti war card was a joke in the 70’s he went over to afganistan to congratulate the russians.
I think the 67 majority isn’t as slender as it seems. The opposition is pretty disparate and includes Sinn Fein who don’t turn up. The BBC reckoned it amounted to a majority closer to 80.
Though I can see the attraction of Caroline Spellman she really does come across as a lightweight and not a particularly bright one. I heard her with John Humphrys and she was seriously out of her depth. If it was possible to hear someone perspiring that was ewhat I heard.
Rik. Commiserations. As the election went on did you have problems with Michael Howard on the doorstep? Voters just didn’t take to him?
103. I suspect you need to read up a little bit more on Northern Ireland politics P, ignoring the fact that Sean was talking about the local elections. The result of the Westminster election was not that “SF/IRA Hold West Belfast, the SDLP the South and the DUP the rest”, but rather ‘Sinn Fein hold West Belfast, Mid Ulster, West Tyrone, Fermanagh & South Tyrone, and Newry & Armagh’, the SDLP South Down and Foyle and won South Belfast, the UUP held North Down, and the DUP the rest…’
109. It would be misleading to give the impression that SF lost its seat in Short Strand to the Alliance Party. 6 wards make up the Pottinger district electoral area, electing 6 councillors under STV across the entire DEA. Without having seen the figures it is hard to tell whether Sinn Fein suffered a drop in their first preference votes within the Short Strand, or whether they failed to get transfers from other parties (mainly the SDLP, though possibly Alliance also) from across Pottinger. Those unfamiliar with STV may be lead to believe that it was a case of SF voters suddenly starting to vote for the Alliance Party! Alliance won a seat in Pottinger at Sinn Fein’s expense, but it is not true to say that Alliance won Short Strand which had been previously held by Sinn Fein.
Andrew (82) and Rik -
You have got me rather confused. Who are we talking about? David Davis, John Redwood or Alan Duncan? Or do your comments apply to all three?
“What rik could be referring to is an old kiss and tell story I remember reading in the MoS (my mother gets it) by an ex boyfriend, which would no doubt be repeated in full accross the media. More seriously, there are questions over his oil trading in the early 90s (to do with the Gulf War and working for Marc Rich) and over a deal he did to buy a council house, for which he had to leave government (read about it in Gyles Brandreth’s diary). In short he probably has too much of a colourful past to be a future leader.”
If they all have a colurful past, please tell us once and for all - just to help clear the air. I know John Redwood´s ex-wife has been spilling the beans recently, but is there more to come?
I must say it did seem to me that Redwood would have been the ideal leader for the Tory Party.
146. Put it this way he is not talking about anyone in the SAS or on the Star Ship Enterprise!
The demographics of the SW London seats are different. Twickenham is quite affluent but fairly far out, with a lot of public sector workers and some grotty areas in Whitton. As for Richmond it is v.affluent, but there is a residue of rich civil servants, combined with a huge legal and media class. The Tories should win Richmond comfortably, but they never have since the 1970s (they nearly lost it in 83 to the liberals). As for Sutton and Cheam and Carshalton and Wallington (includes big St Helier council estate), they are a bit more downmarket, but should both be solid Tory seats.
142.”Reading West was also a good result considering the big swing to Labour last time. ”
maybe the big swing to Labour last time is the reason of the big swing to the tories this time. Some seats (not all) where the tories achieved a better than average swing this time are seats where last time Labour got a better than average swing (for. ex. Stephen Twigg’s seat)
The inrerchanges between Lib Dem and Con need much more study to discover the reasons for the completely contrasting results in similar seats . Postal votes certainly were a big factor where the Lib Dems do not appear to have got their act together and I suspect holding the Local Elections on the same day gave some voters the chance to hedge their bets . In Eastbourne for example the Conservative vote was 4% lower and the Lib Dem vote 6% higher in the local elections .
Can Scottish posters answer me this query : A number of comments before the election suggested the Lib Dems would suffer in Scotland because of the power sharing with Labour in the Scottish Parliament . As it turned out they performed very well in Scotland rather better than the SNP and Tory opposition . Was this good performance because of or despite the power sharing
146.-Former boyfriend and oil it’s Duncan.
148.Andrew Milne, do you know something about what happened to the tories in Solihull to have such a bad result?
Andrew at 125. I agree that Y A-B went way over the top but Shailash Vara was a Ugandan Asian and to act as a Tory spokesman on race and to hear him explain why there should be a cap on asylum seekers makes those of us who know anything about Idi Amin and the Ugandan Asians feel pretty sick. He is my least favourite Tory MP by a long mile.
My favourite one and my choice for leader would have been the excellent Michael Gove. But I suppose he has to put in time on the back benches first
Rik, commiserations. I do not share your politics but respect anybody with the courage to put themselves on the line for their beliefs. However, I do wonder how your party can really try to spin their third worst result since 1850 as a partial victory. The brutal truth is that you have barely put on two per cent since 1997. I assume that, just as in 97 and 01, you will react to a desperate result by lurching further to the right (Davis). If the 80s and 90s are to have any relevance, surely you must follow Labour’s path and tack to the centre…?
I can’t imagine it was because of there involvment in the Executive allthough labour do take most of the flack. Charles Kennedy’s popularity allied to a Tory campaign that lacked relevance to Scots probably helped. No idea why the anti-war protest vote went to the LD’s and not the SNP though.
I still don’t think they’ll do as well in 2007 when they’ll be held to account for there record in government. And here’s a tip they’ll lose Roxburgh and Berwickshire to the Tories. You heard it here first! Only two years to go to see if I’m right.
Anyone know whether Hazel Blears is still there? She’s not listed on the Downing Street website, however the Home Office looks light.
141 - Paul for some reason you really do have a bee in your bonnet!! I dont recall abusing anyone on here. What I have done is occasionally react to some hysterical anti-Tory postings from people like you! If that is contempt then maybe you earned it.
For the record I have NEVER accused my opponent of acting in any way illegally. I DID point out that as a sitting MP he used Parliamentary stationery to bombard constituents with mailshots just prior to the election - something that I cannot do at tax payers expense.
If you think that I should be humble when prats like you are posting complete rubbish on here (now proven rubbish) then you have another think coming! Get over it
145 - in fairness to the poster at 103, I think he/she meant “the rest of Belfast” rather than “the rest of NI”.
Laptop - in many ways I agree with you. It was a poor result this time BUT often it is momentum that counts and at the moment the “mo” is with the Conservatives! I think that with a better national campaign we could have finished at about 36-37% and won 20-30 more seats. What was superb was the marginal seats campaign run by Gavin Barwell and David Canzini at CCHQ. The Libs have never been up against anything like this and it worked a treat.
Next time it will be better still under a new leader. I believe that the next election is now eminently winnable. Labour will now descend into factionalism and splits. I predict that by the end of the year at least two MPs will defect to the Tories, following Helen Clarke’s example.
As someone once said “things can only get better”!
Back to the real topic , Gordon Brown and Mr X are the new leaders of Labour and Conservative parties , a stale C K sees the Lib Dem vote ebbing away on each side . He resigns and Sarah Teather is elected as the new leader and her youth and feminity launch a steamroller that attracts the young vote and women’s vote in a massive way and sweeps the Lib Dems to power at the next election .
Possible fact or fancy ????? You heard it here first .
159 - Sarah T - no way. They are lining up Susan Kramer to take over I am told!!!
158.”I predict that by the end of the year at least two MPs will defect to the Tories, following Helen Clarke’s example.”
so, the tories accepted her?
“Sarah T - no way. They are lining up Susan Kramer to take over I am told!!! ”
Mo Mowlam suggested the same thing in The Independet a couple of days ago. She said that Kramer is the one to watch for the future of the Libdems
161 - I am not sure to be honest but I would be surprised if we didnt accept a defector!
159 etc - BTW it is interesting that my two “informants” have been shown to be right about the info they gave me on the Lib Dem campaigns in the area. And that is despite the derision of “Dan” and others.
158 Maybe, but failing to get beyond 33% for three successive elections doesn’t suggest you will easily leap to the next level. This was a huge opportunity for you - horrendously unpopular Lab PM - and you contrived to blow it massively. Brown will bring back the Lab faithful (who appear to have voted Lib Dem this time round). Big question is Lib Dem strategy now. If they stay in their current leftish slant, then they will not pick up any more votes off you, and perhaps you could see some leakage from NuLab. But somehow I feel they will move back towards the centre, because there are plenty of MPs who will be very uncomfortable with the new positioning, especially when they are fighting you in marginals. Outside of London and SE, the marginals campaign against Lab was a disaster. Even inside London, you long retook Hornchurch (Hornchurch!!!!) and Shipley on recounts, still could not take Selby and finished a long way off in plenty of other seats too.
Woody at 69: Bob Seely looked a bit tired (as I expect we all did) but otherwise OK, and made a decent speech, conceding gracefully, saying I’d worked hard, and gently hinting to the local Conservatives that if they wanted to beat me next time they’d need to work hard through the period, not just in the last month. I’m not sure they were too pleased with the message, but it’s fair enough - years have passed without a single Tory constituency-wide leaflet.
Oliver is too bright to keep on the back-benches, but maybe needs a less controversial job for his talents to shine - Shadow Leader of the House? Shadow Foreign Secretary?
70: Not sure - I was elected after we’d dropped Clause 4. My recollection is that most MPs had seen the writing on the wall and kept their heads down over that.
It’s genuinely difficult, I suspect, if you’re a Labour MP on the hard left. It’s impossible to pretend that the party is currently hospitable to you, and if you were an ordinary member you’d probably drop out. But unless you fancy your chances as an independent or Respect candidate, that way lies oblivion: the loss of your job and all influence of any kind. So you soldier on, angrily denouncing this and that, increasingly isolated in the party as the members who most agreed with you have indeed drifted away. Occasionally something happens that you really like (the minimum wage, for instance), and that cheers you up for a while, but it can’t be easy.
111/113: Thanks, fans :-). FWIW I’m already a PPS (for the Defra team), though not necessarily so after the reshuffle, which will be completed tomorrow at Ministerial level and at PPS level a few days after that. I used to be on the Treasury Select Committee, which is supposed to be a plum job but seemed too much like back-seat driving to me (”We regret that the Minister did not take our advice in…”), so I asked to transfer to a PPS job a couple of years ago. Sometimes this leads to other things, sometimes not!
Rik at 136: Yes, people who do politics for a living have a sense of mutual solidarity at times! I think we should have a trade union of candidates, who would angrily picket people who said things like “You’re all crooks” and “You’re only in it for the money”. I remember when I was on the selection trail one branch in the Midlands (not Broxtowe) made all the applicants except the one currently being interviewed (in turn) stand outside in the rain, to avoid any of us gaining an advantage by accidentally overhearing what the others said. We seriously discussed telling the branch what it could effing do with its effing nomination, but as the rain intensified they did eventually let us in…
164 Whoops, what should have been “only” came out as “long”. Know not why. Blame the subs!
164 - laptop I cannot agree with you on that. The marginals campaign was brilliant. Just look at the number of seats with less than 3,000 majority now. It is now MUCH easier to see us winning starting from here than where we were after 2001. I have yet to see the full stats but I suspect that the swing to us where we needed it was greater than in other seats. Many Lib and Lab seats are now on a knife edge.
I would be delighted if Susan Kramer was the next Lib Dem leader! We could then run our own ‘decapitation strategy’. Thereby enabling her to double her majority. Hmmm, maybe not.
166 But, Rik, if you were seriously contending for government, you would have taken many of these seats. Am I really supposed to see Tory MPs in Wimbledon and Putney (to name my constituency and the adjacent one) as evidence that the Tories are really back in the frame? Or, more probably, that they are finally winning seats (and nit by that mjuch) that they should be weighing the Tory vote in, rather than counting it?
160 - who told you that, Rik, your mate Paul B?
158 - hmmm …. well, if you call gaining 0.5% of the vote momentum … what’s gaining 4% of the vote? Yes you gained seats but mainly (as widely predicted) because of a switch Lab to Lib, ie because of the vagueries of our voting system rather than giaing any new support.
Plus, if your marginal seats campaign was so hot against the Lib Dems, and we were such a shower, how come you only gained net 2?
I think we have to deal in facts here. And before you state it, yes, your party has 3 times as many MPs as we do, also a fact.
The swing even in London was miserly. How many of the gains you made (or nearly made) were as much to do with Lab vote deserting to Lib Dems (over Iraq/trust in Blair) and is therefore likely to go back with GB as PM?
170 - now I wouldnt tell you that would I?!
Its not the vote you get - its the seats!!!! The Libs only got the same % as in 1987 but many more seats. I agree that the result is no triumph but you should see what it has done for morale. We did well in our target seats but again lost a couple that we should have held. The truth is that the Lib Dem strategy against us was a complete wash out.
166. “It’s genuinely difficult, I suspect, if you’re a Labour MP on the hard left. It’s impossible to pretend that the party is currently hospitable to you, and if you were an ordinary member you’d probably drop out. But unless you fancy your chances as an independent or Respect candidate, that way lies oblivion: the loss of your job and all influence of any kind. So you soldier on, angrily denouncing this and that, increasingly isolated in the party as the members who most agreed with you have indeed drifted away. Occasionally something happens that you really like (the minimum wage, for instance), and that cheers you up for a while, but it can’t be easy. ”
Nice words. People usually dismiss them like they’re a only bunch of crazy people without trying to understand that it should be hard
for them (especially for “old” MPs)to see their party change ( or “moving forward” using the NewLab slogan) and not agree with these changes.
Wimbledon certainly ought (in normal circumstances) to be Tory. But Putney has always been marginal.
I would be surprised if Labour regains its lost votes next time round. Long-standing governments tend not to.
172 Not total wash-out - but not far off one. Taking Collins and Taunton was a poor return. Can see why they thought they would take Letwin and also DD, but targeting MH in Folkestone was delusional fantasy (as, in Nostradamus mode) I think I predicted when I said he would have a massively increased majority.
OK I will go along with Susan Kramer with Sarah as Deputy leader lol but in seriousness it would give the Lib Dems a distinct advantage with the female vote which the poll evidence shows was not favourable to the Tories this election
172- Rik, you don’t need your morale boosting. If it was boosted any further you’d be sectioned
What do you think of my analysis at post 3?
177 - sorry, it’s not on this thread. Here it is:
“my thoughts on where the Tories go from here.
It seems to me that there’s electoral capital for them to make by modelling themselves on the US (not Irish ) Republicans, and espousing the following:
- withdrawal from the EU
- promoting “traditional family values” (social conservatism)
- bigger tax cuts for the rich to promote enterprise
- closed borders
- privatise health and education
This would give them a clear and distinct voice where at the moment they are too muffled by elements of the LDs and, more importantly, New Labour.
If you look at the places where their MPs got thumping majorities (eg Romford, Chipping Barnet) that was the message they were selling and it seems to have gone down well there. A H Matlock was musing on what it was that had worked for them in the South that didn’t in the North. I think this answers his question.”
163.”- I am not sure to be honest but I would be surprised if we didnt accept a defector!”
During the campaign she accused the new tory MP to have assaulted her. I assume that he would’t like to have her around.
178 - - withdrawal from the EU - DISAGREE
- promoting “traditional family values” (social conservatism) - DISAGREE - I am a social liberal
- bigger tax cuts for the rich to promote enterprise - DISAGREE - we should be raising the basic threshold and helping small businesses
- closed borders - DISAGREE - controlled immigration not closed borders, it is unrealistic in a modern economy to have closed borders
- privatise health and education - DISAGREE - reform - dont privatise, if by privatise you mean make people pay for it as a good to be purchased. Market reforms yes, privatisation no. In education I would make every school a stand alone trust run by head and governors. LEAs could to all intents and purposes be abolished.
Sorry Tabman but these would not be saleable or sensible policies!
Hang on Tabman (170): “And before you state it, yes, your party has 3 times as many MPs as we do, also a fact.”
You have to take into account that half the Tory MPs are completely useless nonentities, and the other half are barking mad - see the comments above about their prospective next Leaders.
Add to that, their campaign was totally negative - they talked at great length about what they were against (as guided by their focus groups) - but the only proposals they came up with were either pure fantasy (cutting tax, AND government spending AND increasing expendirure, and contracting a far-flung foreign island for processing asylum seekers) or else undoing (or at least criticising) the lamentable consequences of their own policies when they were last in office.
Why I think they will go for Redwood is that he at least knows his own mind. The rest of the Tory Party is just a vacuous drift.
I think none of us can yet draw more than provisional conclusions from what has surely been the most confusing General Election result that any of us can remember. (My current soundbite FWIW is: the politicians lost, the people won.)
I suspect the LDs were behind the game on telephone canvassing - they surely won’t be again, so some of the gains the Tories made from them may be harder to defend than is being suggested by some posters. Both Labour and the Tories need to identify the adjacent seat to each LD gain/increased majority which has the biggest LD challenge and devise a local strategy for defending it. Tiresome of course, but if either of them neglect to do so, and the other has a plan, they will suffer. I am sure the LDs will produce a tax strategy for next time which can be “spun” both ways. But I am getting ahead of myself…
I think there are risks for the Tories in moving leftwards, especially if that rests on the assumption that there is no one competent to occupy a political space to their right. There are people who want to vote for a nasty party, and may otherwise sit on their hands.
Labour’s biggest problem is simply that the system requires parties to go into opposition after 3-4 terms because they are simply exhausted. And it seems to be ever harder for them to re-invent themselves when they get there!
John13 - lol - ask anyone to name more than 3 Lib Dem MPs and they would struggle! Generally speaking Lib Dem MPs are a complete waste of space on the green benches. There are a few exceptions like Menzies Campbell who deserve great respect.
With regards to barking mad, can I aks you to refect on which party has as official policy to give votes to prisoners; not send first time burglars to prison; raise the age of criminal responsibility so the killers of James Bulger couldnt be prosecuted; allow 16 year olds to view, and participate in, pornography? Hmmm who would that be? Oh yes, the Loony Lib Dems!!!!!
180 Looks like a total strike-out there, Tabman!
183 Without wishing to labour the point, Rik, but aren’t they the same “loony Lib Dems” who won Sutton and Cheam?
185 Or was that someone else?
185 - the same loony Libs!!! But people are at least starting to see through them here and elsewhere.
May have missed it earlier, Rik, but where would your vote go for leader?
How’s about this for a Shadow Cabinet. Davis as leader, Clarke as Deputy, Rifkind as Chancellor, Fox Home Secretary, Yeo Foreign Secretary, Cameron Health Secretary, Duncan Environment, plus Osborne, Letwin, Soames and May in other fairly big positions. Plus Hague as Chairman. That would be how to get back into power.
And when did you know it was not going to be your night? How much contact was there with other counts etc?
67. Yes, all you have to do is better than you did this time. But why should you? The only reason you won those London seats is because TB has allowed the City to make so much dosh they can afford to “vote their values” - i.e. tory values. There’s obviously a limit to the expansion of this loads-a-money constituency . Without Iraq the rest of the country would be pretty much Labour. Labour is occupying the “T” and Blair/Brown are good players. How can they lose, next time?
Of course, if Blair/ Brown = Ronnie Corbett ….
189 - Looks like all the wrong people in all the wrong positions lol
Richard - your post @148. Twickenham puzzles me somewhat (I live here!). Last election campaign I had Vincent Cable doorstep me, had decent chat with him, seemed like nice affable fellow, but I didn’t have much to talk to him about on their policies at the time.
This time I was looking forward to it, hoping that he would come round - I had fairly serious questions to ask about how local income tax would work, and a few other things to boot. Unfortunatly didn’t get the chance - not a sniff of any doorstep campaigning by anyone round here, which did drive home the fact we weren’t seen as a marginal.
I think that possibly Vincent Cable has enjoyed a healthy majority because he’s actually a good constituency MP and he is very prominent in the airtime stakes, rather than because LibDem policies would particularly benefit people round here. There’s a split between the lower income areas who would surely be more aligned with blair/brown, and the homeowners who would be pretty much certain to be worse off with the libdem proposals. (>£42k dual-income and you’d be paying more according to their proposals. Well, with 3 bed terraces pushing £400k round here that is pretty much anyone who’s bought their house here in the last 5 years. We’ve already been badly hit by the council’s funding from central govt pushing council tax far higher).
It just puzzles me.
As for back on topic, if Blair doesn’t get a firm grip on things sharpish I think he’ll be the first to go - his position will become untenable and it might actually suit Brown to jump ship from treasury before the economy takes a downturn. If he’s seen to be failing at that then I don’t see him being particularly attractive to the that ever-so-valuable mass of floaters.
I’ve said it before, but I think that Howard has actually pulled a masterstroke with his surprise announcement, as long as he is allowed to stay on as steward until an obvious candidate comes to the fore. His big lever on the party is the fact that he was able to discipline the party and run a coherent slick campaign for the first time in god knows how long. There can be no plotting, because he’s already announced that he’s going.
I might take a long-shot view and have a small punt on Cameron whilst the prices are still decent. My fear (as a Tory supporter) is that Davis will get it - I just don’t see him being able to move the party to the libertarian conservatism that they will have to embrace if they are to have a chance at the next election. He’s needed on the front bench, though, as are Hague, Clarke & Rifkind, IMHO.
Rik, while your result was slightly encouraging, the Tories really need to demonstrate that they’re capable of winning back voters in Sutton by a good showing in the 2006 elections (although you did achieve a better swing than Marco Forgione, even given Tory progress in Richmond).
194 - absolutely right!
193 - it is not my post at 148. BTW Twickenham AFAIK was not a target seat for us.
Rik are you going to stay in S&C or try greener pastures elsewhere? Carshalton looks promising as do many super marginals in SE England, especially in Kent.
Rik (180) - You reject all the suggestions that Tabman kindly proferred you, which might help the Tory Pary regain its identity.
Are you sure that you are in the right party?
It is worth reproducing your comments:
withdrawal from the EU - DISAGREE
- promoting “traditional family values” (social conservatism) - DISAGREE - I am a social liberal
- bigger tax cuts for the rich to promote enterprise - DISAGREE - we should be raising the basic threshold and helping small businesses
- closed borders - DISAGREE - controlled immigration not closed borders, it is unrealistic in a modern economy to have closed borders
- privatise health and education - DISAGREE - reform - dont privatise, if by privatise you mean make people pay for it as a good to be purchased.
If this is what you really believe in, I think you are seriously out of place in today´s Tory Party. No wonder the public is confused about what exactly the Tory Pary stands for….
183. But the Lib Dems won’t make the same mistakes again. CK announced plans today to reform the policy making process. And I’m sure Lord Rennard will sort out the telephone canvassing and postal voting for next time too. The Tories fought a good tactical campaign but didn’t win any hearts and minds.
I can name 4 Lib Dem MPs - Paul Keetch, Paul Burstow, Norman Lamb and Sandra Gidley. (The point is we were “reliably” told they would be ex-MPs by now).
195. Richard, so sorry - you are of course completely correct - it was Andrew Milne’s post!!! My eyes are getting bleary…
196 - Andrew - I will take some time to decide
197 - I am very much in tune with the modern Tory party. It is people in other parties who try to stereotype that have it wrong. No self respecting Tory would tick all the boxes Tabman listed although some may tick some of them. Tax cuts for the rich is just a tired left wing cliche, as is privatise the NHS.
I am an economic and social Liberal (with some dashes of social conservatism). However i am a constitutional conservative and a small “n” nationalist. As with all these labels they are not a perfect fit but they will do.
I am pro Grammar school, pro keeping the Pound, pro strong defence, pro low taxes and a smaller state. I am anti EU intereference in defence and foreign affairs, anti Labour’s big Govt and the Lib Dems high taxes.
Re. 132 but there were nearly 4% swings from LibDem to Conservative in both West Devon & Torridge and Tiverton & Honiton. Mid Devon has gone true blue again and I’m delighted. I don’t suppose anyone paid any attention to my tip that this would happen, but if you had you’d be sitting on winnings as I am!!!
The LibDems are not popular in properly rural areas. Their Europhilia (that sounds like an arrestable offence doesn’t it?!) and ambivalence on hunting went down like a lead balloon in these parts. And as for Tony Blair … I didn’t see a single Labour sticker or poster in the whole of Devon at any point. I don’t think anyone would have dared.
201 it sounds more like an STD!
For those that mock talk of a Tory recovery read http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200505/ab759e8c-dd61-4b60-814a-87a3651f33a2.htm
Richard S. Yor talk of a brilliant campaign by Michael Howard. Well if you read the report from the BES survey that’s not what they found. They described it as a disaster. Also John Burcow is writing about it in similar terms in the Independent tomorrow. I suspect the opening of the floodgates and the real reason why MH is quitting so soon.
201 - But swings from Con to Lib Dem in Devon East , North , South West , Teignbridge and Totnes . It is this inconsistency that needs examinibg closely rather than each side selecting only the results favourable to them and having amnesia about the others .
Re. 178 - as a Tory party member I think this list is total nonsense, and a recipe for us not being in power for another decade or more.
Of course we need to be in the centre, not the more extremes. No-one ever wins power in this country by being extreme. Period. I agree with Richard W’s stance actually. Personally I think ‘freedom’ is a glue that can hold us together and provide a cohesive narrative: economic, social and personal freedom. We need freedom from the State interfering in our lives; freedom from bureaucracy; freedom from high taxation; and, yes, freedom to make our own lifestyle choices.
As for the leader - we will find the right person. I loved Michael Heseltine’s comment the other day that ‘it’s not very easy to define an elephant, but when you see one you know what it is’. Remember that Margaret Thatcher really didn’t emerge as the obvious choice until late in the process. I think the same will happen. All I’ll say is this:
I represent the type of person the Conservatives need to win over. They got me back on board, together with some friends, because of their promise to lower taxation and because they started to look credible. We cannot under any circumstances afford to go to the right with our next leader. David Davis will not win for the Conservatives. Anyone who seriously thinks Redwood is as bonkers as he is (wasn’t it Soames who quipped that if he were his dog he’d have him put down?!). Rifkind is a complete bore - I’ve been in studios with him and although I like him he’s soooooo dulllllll.
Nope - skip a generation or a gender. Fresh face needed. Just got to be the right one. The oldies have had their day. Oh, one more thing, if Tebbit opens his mouth again he should be expelled from the party.
See there you go again Rik. You can’t be gracious about anyone. The ‘loony libs’ beat you - I believe Burstow received 47% of the vote in S&C. That means you believe that nearly half of those that you wanted to represent were ‘loonies’ does it? I mean - I presume that you informed them of LD ‘lunacy’ in S&C (the Tories certainly didn’t pull any punches in that regard - I saw the literature down here), so when they trotted off to the polling station they took an informed decision, and chose their ‘lunacy’ over your party. That must make those voters ‘loonies’ at least by default.
Furthermore - WRT your first post regarding Paul Burstow’s letters to constituents, you used the term ‘misuse of public money’.
What is more - you have described me as a ‘prat’ and a ‘moron’ amongst other things. I have never said such things. I have said that I believed you were unfit to be an MP, and I do think you treat people with contempt and that you boast, and you pretend you know everything, and you write in capitals, because you think it makes a point, but it shows how unreasoned and unreasonable you are.
See, if you were a Tory candidate who came on here like other candidates and joined in the debate, accepting the ebb and flow of argument, stating your hopes and fears in equal measure, sharing your experiences in proportion to their reality I would give you the all the respect in the world. But that is not how you have done it - you chose to be aggressive and liberally (now there’s a word) spread around unpleasantries about people who you disagree with here or other politicians. So, all in all, I feel no shame in teasing you about your loss.
Sorry - really didn’t mean to offend re. Tebbit. It’s just that fellow Tories have got to realise that the past is now a liability not an asset to the people we need to win over. It may be sad. But I am certain it’s true. It’s why Michael, bless him, could never ever have won for us.
Have I missed something? There seems to be no talk at all, at least in the news media of a reshuffle for Michael Howard’s Shadow Cabinet. Of course there didn’t have to be one after the election, but with Collins, Yeo and Soames out surely something has to be done soon?
Paul - have you noticed that it is only to individuals like you that I attached words like prat? (And I am really being restrained here) You see others have had a decent debate whatever they may think of me and that is fine but you degenerate into abuse, cynicism and sarcasm and as long as you do so you will get a similar response. I come from a belief that politicians shouldnt have to put up with stupid comments masquerading as fact, such as come from you regularly. So if you are reasonable I will be reasonable, if you continue to act like a 6th form debater I will respond appropriately. The choice is yours - mature debate or exchange of insults!
Oh and I have never accused Burstow’s voters of lunacy. But a growing number are seeing what his party stands for across the country. However we need to do more to expose Lib Dem lunacy and hypocrisy, that is true and I am sure we will.
206 - RichardH. Did you think the skip a generation to get Hague for the 2001 election worked well ?
210 - If a growing number across the country are seeing what the Lib Dems stand for and their vote increased a growing number must agree with it
206. Your mention of Soames reminds me, he was bending TB’s ear at great length at the royal wedding. About what I wonder - the impending disaster? (for that it was). Also his “f*****g disaster” comment on coming third in .. wherever. Sometimes I think he’s the only tory with any sense. Must be in the genes. Also, even us reds love a toff. I know he would not have a chance, but I think he’s terrific.
210. “I have never accused Burstow’s voters of lunacy. But a growing number are seeing what his party stands for across the country.” What truth you speak Rik, and in fact we can put a figure on that growing number: the 1,169,212 more people voted Lib Dem compared to the last GE.
Just one more push and Howard could have squeezed a few more votes from the BNP. Must make you proud to be Conservatives
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1479529,00.html
Richard Willis [180] wrote In education I would make every school a stand alone trust run by head and governors. LEAs could to all intents and purposes be abolished.
Well, this is as Blairite a notion as ever I did hear, and it may be worth asking why it hasn’t happened already. I think the answer may be that you’d still have to have some form of regulation to ensure that the management and governance was up to it, and to ensure that every child got a school place… it’s easier than you might think to create bureaucracy by trying to scrap it! Also, by the next election “Sure Start” will be beginning to pay dividends (we all hope) in terms of fewer disturbed/disruptive kids, so - always providing teachers can afford to find somewhere to live - the pressure to seek an answer in administrative reform may not be there.
214 the Libs have always been a dustbin for protest votes. That does not mean a great deal. WHere they are in power they rarely last long. Sutton Council is one exception (until next May at least!).
The Lib Dems will get brushed aside when Gordon leads Labour and a new Tory leader is chosen. Charlie boy is no match for a real politician.
204. Oh, I have reservations on some aspects of the campaign - personally I don’t think that the disproportionate amount of time spent on immigration was particularly helpful, and I found MH’s stance on Iraq to be inconsistent. The importance of this campaign was that discipline did not break down and that the Tories were really leading the issues.
The fact that swings did not go the Tories way points to 1) emphasis on wrong issues and 2) that MH is still linked too much in potential supporter’s minds to the messy entrails of the Thatcher/Major governments.
216 - it would have to be coupled with a rigorous examination and inspection system. Neither of which exist at present.
219. Targets, eh?
211. John - poor William Hague was on a hiding to nothing. No-one could have done anything with the party after the 1997 hiding so it’s rather unfair at best to make a comparison. Nevertheless, it is now crucial to move on from the past. I am quite sure that anyone who smacks of Thatcher will lose us the next election. That will still be a terrible shock for many in the party - but I’m afraid chatting to lots of my middle of the road friends, it’s true. (By the way, Richard is right about immigration - it went down really badly with swing voters I know.)
There’s a lot of aggression around tonight. Ouch - chill out a bit folks.
p.s. Hague went bald. The electorate will not like someone who is bald. I’m afraid these days image is crucial.
217. “Charlie boy is no match for a real politician”. I would tend to agree. Unfortunately the Conservative Party don’t have any among their leadership contenders.
222 - Chrisco - I would submit Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind, David Davis, Michael Howard, William Hague, Nicholas Soames - all of whom are in stature miles ahead of CK. The only Lib Dem I can think of with real credibility and stature is Menzies Campbell. If he had been leader I think some of the wild predictions of “meltdown” and “Tories are toast” that we had from Stuart Dickson et al might have come to pass.
When is it thought the Toryy leadership election will take place ?
I have heard rule changes to take place at conference in October so are we talking late this year/early next year ?
So are we going have months of leadership hopefuls concentrating on outdoing each other?
Bruce Willis is bald. He seems to do OK?
Charlie Kennedy looks like a potato and it’s not doing him any damage
224 - I suspect that the rule changes will be discussed several times by the 1922 Committee and the BOard of the Party before being submitted to the National Convention at Party Conference in October. They would then be likely to take effect in the New YEar. If there are issues they could go before the National Convention at the SPring Conference next year.
In the meantime there will be a lot of internal consultation and discussions.
224. Before september according to the Guardian
227 - I dont see how they can be approved before Sept unless there is a special meeting of the National Convention. Also since the previous reforms were approved by a ballot of all the membership there may have to be the same again to change it.
So Rik, if Charlie K is not a real politician, how do you explain his 22 years in Parliament, increased share of the vote and increased LibDem seats in Parliament? Whilst we all congratulate you on the swing you achieved in S&C, it is about time that the Tories really did take stock and stop making such strident comments. You did not win the seat you were contesting so it is probably not time to make predictions of who will control the council next May.
If you are really to make progress, you should bear in mind the comments of Alan Duncan. Whilst he may not be leadership material, the Tories have ceded territory to the LibDems which will be difficult to recover.
It is intersting that whilst the Tories and Labour have a leadership squabble, the LibDems have started the process of reviewing campaigns, policies etc. The Tories will be playing catch up and the likes of Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne, Susan Kramer, David Laws with a safer seat now will soon be established MPs able to take on the Tories.
Richard @208. Please don’t apologise. Tebbit makes my blood boil for his systematic and calculated disloyalty ever since MH became leader.
The Tabman/Kaletsky “manifesto” has been posted, what five or so times, and IIRC not one of the Tories here have subscribed to it. And neither will the party as a whole. My own facile sound bite of last Thursday is that the Conservatives have finally regained self confidence; there is still so much to do but the party is now taken seriously. Viewed from this vantage, the mood and spirit must inevitably be more outward looking; the need for a comforting ideological cocoon far less. So I’ve no doubt that, buoyed by what appears to be an unusually talented intake, the Tories will accelerate its endeavours to move beyond the core. I’ll leave the alluring Ms Clare Voyant, and her devotees here, to judge its likely success in 2009, 2013, or the end of time
Great to see Rik bouncing back after such a valiant endeavour for which he and his team deserve enormous credit. Rik’s style of posting was different to Nick Palmer’s over the last few weeks, but on several occasions both agreed with each other on some aspect of constituency campaigning. This basic mutual respect, despite the political divide, was evidenced again this evening by Nick and Tom Watts. Which is why Paul’s approach was so discordantly out of place.
Richard - if you’re still around, have you considered the new Devon seat? I think a Dartmoor seat will be created, leaving half of West Devon & Torridge behind?
Thanks John at 230 - good man!
MH is carrying out a reshuffle this week, which will be ready by Thursday apparently. He will also explain the likely timetable for departure and may now stay on till summer 2006, as the donors are pressing for him to stay and changing the rules will take time. Some of the new Lib Dem MP’s are good (Kramer is a major improvement over Jenny Tonge), but there are also many young bright Tory MP’s now as well (Nick Herbert, Michael Gove, Theresa Villiers and Greg Clark to name a few). As for a policy review, I think you’ll find that is what the party is trying to thrash out at the moment, in the guise of modernisation.
On policy though, the immediate priorities must be pensions (Willetts was good at that), the nuclear issue (both weapons and power plants), environment (climate change which Yeo is sorting out from the backbenches) and international development, where we have good policies which are unknown. Also the party must start looking at the European Referendum, not necessarily talking about it, but setting up a platform and organisation to fight for a no vote. A clear victory in the campaign on the consitution, fought on a reasoned and not nationalistic basis will provide a good boost for the party.
BTW, Tebbit is an ars*hole, who lost us Thanet South, where Mark Macgregor a strong Tory thinker who lost by 600 votes was probably sunk by Lord Tebbit’s needless intervention. If MH had been brave, Tebbitt should have lost the party whip in the Lords for slagging off a PPC like that and costing us a seat.
The Conservatives are plainly on the up: they have been since about 1999, although progress has been quite erratic. This slow process of recovery might last for the next ten years, just as Labour’s “long recovery” from 1983 onwards peaked in 1997, with a further upward point in some regions in 2001. However, the question is: will the tip of this recovery leave the Conservatives in the sort of position that Labour achieved? As Sean Fear said elsewhere on this site yesterday, 40-50 seats look eminently achievable next time, but progressing after that looks much more difficult. If the Tories only ultimately get as far as being the larget party in a hung parliament, or obtaining a very narrow majority, before falling back under the pressures that affect all governments, then the prospect in the very long run is gloomy.
197 - John13: Congratulations on the ‘brilliant’ campaign you and the Lib Dems ran in Windsor. You’re still savouring sweet victory, I’m sure!
Not sure about “sweet victory”, AHM. I think the Lib Dems really “won” the campaign proper, but were not prepared for the bombardment of Tory lies, half-truths, and total distortions that came in under the radar.
It is why I commented earlier that the Tories effectively have no policies. All they did was to reproduce grumbles from their focus groups and agree with them, without proposing solutions - let alone recognising that most of the grumbles had their origins in the mistaken policies of the last Tory administration.
So yes - it ws a moral victory for the Lib Dems - but we will be ready and waiting for you next time.
237 - B*gger it, I was going to be gracious after the initial ribbing, but you deserve this:
Like you were ready for us this time? I’m frightened! I’m not surprised at the laundry list of sour grapes and accusations, though - they are the timeless preserve of losers.
Adam Afriyie is a brilliant candidate, is about to become a brilliant MP and you’ll never oust him. I promise you that.
From Richard Willis [217] “The Lib Dems will get brushed aside when Gordon leads Labour and a new Tory leader is chosen. Charlie boy is no match for a real politician.”
Didn’t hear you criticising Howard before the election. Are you saying that Howard was the problem for you this time? It is fact that Charlie Boy increased Lib Dem vote by nearly 3 times the number that Howard managed for the Tories.
Who did you vote for when IDS was chosen? If they give ordinary members a vote this time who will you vote for?
“When Michael Foot crashed to ignominious defeat in the 1983 general election, Labour’s Bennite left famously complained that the party had been insufficiently radical. Nationalising the banks, pulling out of the European Union, unilateral nuclear disarmament and the rest had conceded too much to the Thatcherite ruling classes.
I was reminded of this self-serving insanity when a senior Conservative mentioned to me at the weekend that Michael Howard was blaming himself for his party’s latest failure. The problem, Mr Howard had confided, was that he had not returned strongly enough to the issues of asylum and immigration in the final days of the campaign. That’s right. The Tories had lost because they had not been nasty enough. One last pitch to the visceral fears and prejudices of core supporters and, we are to believe, Mr Howard might be tucking his feet under Tony Blair’s desk in 10 Downing Street.”
From Philip Stephens todays FT.
There is a good chance that the Tories will move further “rightwards” - as tabman has proposed.
BTW radio saying Letwin doesn’t want to be in shadow cabinet - Looks as if Tories will be in limbo until new leader is elected/chosen - I am confident that they will rush it and pick the wrong one again. What about a market on how long the new leader will last?
Rather disappointing to see the tone of exchanges on here last night . There seems to be a blinkered attitude amongst both Lib Dem and Tory pollsters which selects facts that suit them and ignores others that do not . As an impatial apolitical observer , I feel the result of the election was a draw and no amount of spin will change the fact that for example in Devon some seats swung one way and some the other . My interest is in trying to discover why and not trying to make out that did not happen .
I can recall a local election night many years ago ( perhaps Robert Waller can recall which year ) where the winners were clearly Labour but the Lib Dems had some success . The Lib Dems tried to spin that they were the winners and for reasons of their own this was taken up by the Tory press leaving a Martian to have been under the impression that what was true was not . The Tories on here are trying to do the same thing on this board now .
222 - don’t understimate CK (I used to!) He has done very well at positioning the LDs as the real alternative, though I think that’s a one-election strategy.
John O said :\”This basic mutual respect, despite the political divide, was evidenced again this evening by Nick and Tom Watts. Which is why Paul’s approach was so discordantly out of place.”
A point of response. Neither Tom Watts nor Nick Palmer are Liberal Democrats. This has relevance, because Richard Willis showed his main opponent no mutual respect whatsoever. He accuses me of being 6th form etc. etc., but only because he knows that my charge is true.
You see I think the real problem for the Tories (and you don’t appear to fall into this category) is that so many of you appear to have no generosity of spirit, no respect for people from a different perspective. Take post 217 for example. In one sentence Richard Willis writes off all those who voted Liberal Democrat, Charles Kennedy (a man who it has pointed out has been an MP for 22 years and leader of his party for 5 years, has increased his party’s share of the vote 4% nationally and led to successive increases in the number of MPs - not a real politician ‘like William Hague’?)and Sutton & Cheam council. But there was no debate, just a wild, thoughtless stream of invective.
You see, my charge all along has been that Richard’s behaviour is not up to candidate status. I will give you an example. I was helping the LD candidate in East Devon fight Hugo Swire. Us helpers there think Swire’s an idiot - Swire slagged off our candidate, and 30 stakeboards went missing mysteriously, and we saw the kind of negative literature that the Tories produced. But did our candidate respond - no. He made a good speech on the night congratulating Hugo on his victory. Would Richard have been so restrained or dignified. The evidence is here all over this site, and I feel that a resounding ‘no’, would be the answer.
So I will say it once again. I am glad you lost Richard. Not because you are a Tory, but because as an MP you would have to represent people and to represent them you have to respect them, and that I fear is something you have not learnt - and going by how you have taken your defeat - never will.
Rik @ 214 - I think I will treat that prediction about the next election as I did your prediction about this one -0 that when the public examines LD policies the party will end up with 16-17% of the vote.
the Tories and Lib Dems both blew good opportunities, both leaders inadequate.
Paul at 243: I wouldn’t say I was necessarily Rik’s greatest fan and some of his gung-ho predictions were provocations to those of us with different views, but I don’t think the board benefits from our exploring our mutual weaknesses. Now that the election’s over, the board’s main attraction for most of us will be a place to discuss polls and predictions (and bets, for those so inclined) in a reasonably dispassionate way. I’ve got better things to do than weigh up the qualities of people I’ve not met, and so, I’m sure, do you.
If the Conservative chose a “left” or “right” wing leader will the party split? How many more Robert Jacksons are there on the left? They at least would have somewhere to go to. The rightists would have more of a problem if a left wing leader is chosen - what would they do?
Who of the current runners is the centerist healer candidate?
I have bet against Davis, he seems to have too many enemies But I admit there are no very likely names in the chasing pack. Like the Grand National the number of runners may have to be limited soon or they will be in danger of injuring each other.
184 - laptop, and I was only trying to be helpful!
246 - Nick, its noticeable that the temperature was somewhat raised last night. Perhaps some of the (recently returned) contributors might desist from using inflama-tory language.
Rik wrote –
‘So if you are reasonable I will be reasonable, if you continue to act like a 6th form debater I will respond appropriately. The choice is yours - mature debate or exchange of insults!’
He also wrote:
‘The Lib Dems will get brushed aside when Gordon leads Labour and a new Tory leader is chosen. Charlie boy is no match for a real politician.’
Question Rik – is this ‘mature debate’ or an ‘exchange of insults’?
You also wrote
‘185 - the same loony Libs!!! ‘
Question Rik – is this ‘mature debate’ or an ‘exchange of insults’?
You also wrote
‘Generally speaking Lib Dem MPs are a complete waste of space on the green benches.’
Question Rik – is this ‘mature debate’ or an ‘exchange of insults’?
You also wrote
‘The truth is that the Lib Dem strategy against us was a complete wash out’
Question Rik – is this ‘mature debate’ or an ‘exchange of insults’?
You also wrote
‘And that is despite the derision of “Dan” and others.’
Question Rik – is this ‘mature debate’ or an ‘exchange of insults’?
You also wrote
‘If you think that I should be humble when prats like you are posting complete rubbish on here (now proven rubbish)’
Question Rik – is this ‘mature debate’ or an ‘exchange of insults’?
That’s a pretty large amount of childish insults and opinionated crap for one thread isn’t it Rik? Where’s your analysis? Or facts? Why can you not behave like Max or Sean or Anthony Wells and ENGAGE with people of a different view?
I really think like others you are unfit to be an MP, unless you can learn some humility and to argue in a reasoned way.
I’m hoping that if Robert and Mike carry out a site upgrade they can introduce an ‘ignore’ facility – I’ll certainly be using it for you. No doubt you could do the same for me and the others that disagree with your ‘self evident truths’.
I really think like others you are unfit to be an MP, unless you can learn some humility and to argue in a reasoned way.
HaHa! I hardly think the latter two points are acknowledged parts of an MP’s job description
Here’s an interesting article about the tories candidates who received cash for their campaign by Lord Ashcroft, Lord Steinberg and the Midlands Industrial Council.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1480120,00.html
the biggest failures were in North Norfolk, Taunton, Mid Dorset and Poole North (against the Libdems) and Enfield North, Wolverhampton South West, South Ribble, South Thanet and Medway (against Labour).
The tory candidate in Wyre Forest was on the list too. that’s maybe explain the big swing for the tories in this seat. I suppose that an independent like Dr Taylor has not all the money that a party candidate could find.
RE: 129, I always predicted a swing from LD to Conservative in the south.
RE: 193, David Davies was as I understand it against ID cards hence the fence sitting the Conservatives did.
It strikes me from the Guardian article that the Bearwood approach was not all that successful electorally - in fact I know that some seats used the line “the Tories are trying to buy back this seat” quite effectively. It seems they did not win any more of these seats than one would expect given that they were mostly knife-edge marginals.
I suspect the lesson is that beyond a certain point you run into diminishing returns in constituencies. If you lack the people to put out literature and knock on doors you can increase the quality of leaflets a bit, buy an individual billboard or two or get a newspaper commercially delivered (but not during the campaign itself in practical terms). This is all very nice to have but hardly transforms the position on the ground. I imagine it also to some extent just crowded out money from other sources (i.e. the candidates put less up and there was less serious effort to shake down moderately wealthy local members).
Mind you, there is a certain sense for the individual donor. If the MP wins, (s)he feel personally indebted and (like political betting) it adds a bit of interest to proceedings to have “your” candidates running. Just bunging a few thousand to be spent refueling the leader’s plane isn’t half as much fun.
Benedict @ 252 - there wasnt a swing from LD to Con is South West, The LDs went up by 1.4% the Tories by 0.1%.
I can’t help but feel that there is a certain amount of rewriting of history going on re: the Tory vs LD vote.
In the Top 25 Tory held LD target seats, the LD captured or reduced the majority in 10, while the Tories increased their majority in 15.
In the Top 25 LD held Tory targets the the Tories captured or reduced the majority in 12 with LD majority rising in 13 of those seats.
That looks like a score draw to me - so please lets calm down some of the claims
And how about in the South, Bullseye?
In the South East the Tory vote went up by 2.1%, while the Lib Dem vote went up by 1.7%…
But Benedict said there would be a swing to the Conservatives from Lib Dem in the south. That did not happen. There was a 0.2% swing to the Tories in the South East and a 0.6% swing to the Lib Dems in the South West on the BBC’s definitions (the West is about half the size but it still more than balances out the swing in the East).
I am being generous by not including London (which was in the South last time I checked) which registered a 1.5% swing to the Lib Dems or the Eastern region (much of which is arguably in southern England) which registered a 1.4% swing.
It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that the Lib Dems would do comparatively better in terms of swing where there is more of an ethnic minority community, or that the Tories swapping a northern leader (Hague) for a southern one would have a slight impact. But there was still not a Lib Dem to Tory swing in the South.
254 - Hi Bullseye , Spot on I agree a 1-1 draw . Instead of thinking they won , the Tories would do better trying to find out why similar seats behaved totally differently . I would think the Lib Dems will be doing this . If Labour just assume their lost voters will automatically return once Iraq is forgotten , they will also be making a bad mistake which a Liberal party led by Susan Kramer and Sarah Teather would be in a position to capitalise on .
I thought it was a 2-2 draw with the Tories snatching a late equaliser. Unfortunately the first leg was played on LD Accrington Stanley’s quirky little pitch. In the second leg on their own lush turf, Tory Chelsea would have to be blind drunk to lose.