Will Tories back the Hague rollercoaster?
May 10th, 2005-
Could the Tories really go back to the last leader but two?
The big money in the Tory leadership contest has been piling on the last leader to be beaten by Tony Blair, William Hague.
At one stage William Hill’s reported that it had taken £85,000 worth of bets on the former leader in just an hour and all the bookmakers have tightened their prices. The best you can get from a conventional bookmaker is 7/2.
Hague, who is now 44, took over the leadership in 1997 after the first Blair landslide. He stepped down immediatly after the 2001 General Election. He was always reckoned to have been able to get the better of Tony Blair in the Commons but did not carry enough credibility with the general public.
-
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Didn’t Hague catagorically state that he wasn’t going to become leader again some months ago?
Isn’t Hague clever enough to realise that becoming Leader now might not be in his best interest? Hague, I think, stayed out of the shadow cabinet primarily because he didn’t want to be assoicated with the failures in 01-05.
Now there is another way - why not take on a good Tory role (i.e. Shadow Home Secretary) or a popular campaigning role (i.e. Party Chairman) in the team? If the Tories get into Hung territory next time or a very small majority then Hague springs the trap!
George Osborne is the new Shadow Chancellor.
Brilliant appointment. Well done Michael Howard - good man. We want the young runners right up there to be tested out. Then we’ll see for sure who will take up the mantle. I think Cameron is in and Rifkind too?
Dr Liam Fox, who was chairman, becomes shadow foreign secretary. Francis Maude becomes party chairman and David Cameron, 38, takes on education.
Former Cabinet minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind is work and pensions spokesman.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4533555.stm
Rifkind in W&P, surely he was hoping for more?
Dave Cameron is education.
What an opportunity for Osborne …! But why the heck not.
I admire Howard for this greatly.
And Francis Maude is also a fab appointment as far as I’m concerned (though I need insiders to comment please!). It signals that this isn’t going to be a right wing team so far …?
No job for Hague! Maude means the finances should be safe.
I cannot see how Hague could maintain the aloof stance and then expect to be leader. It really wouldn’t look good. I think he’s out of the running now (though you never entirely know).
Does this mean Davis remains at Shadow Home then? And Letwin is now where? Rifkind has not done so badly for someone who has only just got back in - he has been away for not one, but two terms remember.
What has happenend to Willetts. Without seeing the reshuffle in full, I would guess he is replacing Yeo at DEFRA. Some talk he would get Shadow Chancellor’s job. V.Interesting that Howard has given it to Osbourne. Fox at Foreign Affairs makes sense, particularly with the need to prepare for a campaign on the European Constitution. As for Rifkind, presumably the thinking is with the big pensions review at the moment, that his position will give him a strong platform to build himself up and attack the government. As for Maude, he may well sort the finances out, but he is not a good TV performer. Lets hope they have got a telegenic deputy or joint chairman alongside him.
Presumably also this late burst of betting on Hague may begin to reverse. Should we see the odds rising again?
Maude is a big bet, given that he was the primary mover behind launching IDS’ deselection. I am not sure he is considered terribly trustworthy (Portillo sans charisma). Willets is now Shadow DTI.
Other key appointments include Michael Ancram switching from shadow foreign secretary to defence, replacing Mr Soames.
David Willetts, moves from work and pensions to shadow the new government department of productivity, energy and industry
Does this mean that Osbourne is Howard’s favoured successor? The only way I can see Hague running is as a stop Davis candidate maybe otherwise he would of returned to the front bench, but people must be putting all that money on him for some reason.
I’m guessing on Davis as Leader, with Osbourne or Cameron as Chancellor - looking more like Osborne after today.
I would also say, on Rifkind, that there is a matter of not just matching MP with department, but also matching shadow minister with minister. My guess is that Howard believes Rifkind will be good at laying into David Blunkett, that Davis will continue to be good against Clarke, and so on.
Postponded general election poll in Staffordshire South will take place on Thursday June 23rd. A postponded county council election in the Kinver division will also take place on that day.
This is not a by-election, as the re-run of the election will take place using the same writ (although that won’t stop the media calling it a by-election.
Very impressive Shadow team, but then I’m biased. Would like to have seen Hague in there. Theresa May and Caroline Spelman remain in post so at least there are two females too.
Modernisers - Maude
Fairly balanced ticket, I’d say… gives all factions something.
Right - Davis and Fox
Left - Rifkind
Notting Hill - Osborne and Little Cameron
Compassionate Conservatives - Willetts
Try that again, in the right order…
Fairly balanced ticket, I’d say… gives all factions something.
Modernisers - Maude, May (?)
Right - Davis and Fox
Left - Rifkind
Notting Hill - Osborne and Little Cameron
Compassionate Conservatives - Willetts, Spelman
21 - Fox on the right? I’ll remember to keep my girlfriend to the left of me next time I meet him then
And Howard, as BBC 24 just suggest, has really thrown all the front-runners in prominent posts and said ’show us your stuff’. That’s great. I’d say forget Hague now - if he wanted the leadership he’d have asked for a job. The next leader will almost certainly come from one of the Shadow Cabinet. But who?!
(By the way, do you really think Fox is right-wing? Maybe it’s just that Scotts burr that deceives me, but he always seems quite gentle to me!)
I fail to see the point of reshuffling (apart from to replace Tim Collins) when it will all just be reshuffled again in a couple of months. Surely nobody will be able to have any policy initiatives until there is a new leader so why not stick with the briefs people know a bit about and leave it at that? I suppose Howard thinks he is “securing his legacy” or something but it just seems he is making a complete hash of his departure
A bold and fairly unexpected reshuffle. A 33 year old shadow chancellor is pretty chastening for all of we 30-something underachievers out there.
25 So you’d just have left the posts vacated by the people who resigned (Tim Yeo, Nicholas Soames) or lost their posts (Tim Collins) vacant would you?!
Your suppositions as to right/left moderniser/compassionate are well off mark…
The “factions” just aren’t that clear cut any more. I am a big fan of Dr Fox myself, and I’m be on the liberal/libertarian “wing” of the party, if such a wing exists.
25. He needed to replace Soames and Yeo, and apparently Letwin said he wanted to step aside. They have just said on 5 live that the tories may not even have the leadership rules in place at the conference. This thing is going to be dragging on after Christmas I think, unless the 1922 committee gets the names of 25 tory MPs shortly.
Mike, what an accommodating host you are - all these blue rinses wetting themselves, on your site, about the “brilliant” appointments in the “admirable” Mr Howard’s “very impressive” team. Her Majesty’s Opposition - no wonder they’re all smiles, it’s money for old rope.
26 - how right you are!!! At 41 I’m suddenly feeling very long in the tooth. Good on Howard though. We’ll now have a chance to see them all in action before making the choice - or not, because as a member I fully expect to lose any say in the process!!!!
You can be right wing and have a good bedside manner. Dr Fox was the architect of the Right to Choose health policy, as well as proposing English language tests for foreigners working in the health service, is an ardent Thatcherite on economics and is as Eurosceptic as anyone short of Bill Cash. Yup, he’s right wing, right enough.
Is nobody worried that Osborn will look rather lightweight compared to Vince Cable? (Not to mention Gordon Brown!) He did when the two of them appeared together during the election.
26. I would feel too inferior. It’s a nothing job which hasn’t even started yet!
30. It’s a betting site John, and the next leader is one of the big bets ahead - especially as that person could be the next PM after Gordon Brown! Leave out the rudeness though - life’s much nicer for everyone without it.
A hideous reshuffle!
Out goes Soames (loved by Tories who are old or traditional) and Yeo (the favourite of Tories who are young or modern) and in come an awful bunch.
Rifkind is being moved to an insultingly small role, Fox is being moved to a completely unsuitable role and they’ve chosen the least weighty member of the entire team to stand up to Gordon Brown!
I assume that the new leader will change thing as soon as he’s had a chance to sit down in his new office!
Most interesting changes. Quite a mix and more appealing than the Cabinet. The only draw back in my eyes is that they are all Conservatives…
From a Lib Dem voter (although not whole hearted supporter), I think this is a mainly positive Shadow Cabinet. But I wouldn’t trust Liam Fox and he’s not the Shadow for Foreign Affairs that I would have expected. Thought that could be for David Cameron.
Interesting stuff.
Rob.
27 - Obviously not but it wasn’t appropriate to have a pretty radical shake-up like this - it is perfectly possible to slot people in here and there or have deputies filling in temporarily. A new leader may not want Osbourne in such a senior role at such a young age for example, or they might not want to bring back the “old guard” in the form of Rifkind but it is now very difficult to demote them. It is just a bit selfish and unhelpful to tie your successor’s hands like Howard has.
The question is, how does it affect the leadership stakes?
DD remains the favourite, with the Home brief a good platform.
Fox gets a chance to burnish his Eurosceptic credentials with the members in the runup to potential Constitution referendum - assuming they still have a vote and the French don’t vote No.
Rifkind gets to tear Blunkett and the Turner pensions report apart giving his chances a boost.
Osborne overtakes Cameron in the ’skip two generations’ camp
Letwin, May, Clarke are gonners.
Hague…? Looks like the others would have to be travelling on the same unlucky jet to have a chance now.
38 - Ah but say, MH knows who he wants to be his successor and has an idea of whom that person might want in his shadow cabinet. I think the shadow cabinet suits Dave Cameron down to a tee!
38 - er you’re assuming that Osborne (correct spelling by the way) won’t be that leader? Odds have just shortened on him as far as I can see - went to make a bet on WillHill and he’s 9-1.
40. “to a tee ..” or “down to the ground ..”
Cameron’s role at Education is front line, but it begs the question why was GO favoured over DC?
36 -> I’m one of the Young Conservatives you talk about, and neither myself or any of my group both inside or outside the party particualiry favour Yeo, mainly because we remember him as one of the damagers of the party and the news coverage surrounding him and his affair. He is a moderniser as a thinker, and hopefully will have a key role in that part of the party in the coming months, but that may be the best place for him.
IMHO, I think the shock was Willetts - not neccessarily a high profile enough role that many thought he should get
IG have moved Cameron from 5-8 to 8-12 and dropped DD a point.
43. I think Willets would join Blair if he could get a deal. Far too reasonable to be a tory - in the current outfit, anyway.
I actually think this is great. MH is pretty shrewd sometimes - he’s got all the front-runners in position now.
Please let’s be real. I mean I love Nicholas Soames - he’s a hoot - but not exactly the next leader and anyway he asked to go (he denies he’s after the 1922). I think Willetts is a bit boring to be honest. Redwood I presume is still around because it’s better to keep him tethered. Clarke and Hague are gonners. Yeo will never get it because of his shenanigans.
No - the front-runners for the leadership are all there now. And it’s up to them to perform over the next 9(?)months.
43 - John you really an berk! I mean that semi-affectionately, but you’re so daft sometimes that it’s funny.
43 - I had heard from a few people who were trying to decide between Tory and Lib Dem at the last election (and who are fairly clued up about everyone involved) that Yeo is one of the most popular figures among the modernising wing and that he’s seen as a way to help the party move away from it’s nasty side…
Who would you say are the more popular young liberal figures?
41 - I’m not assuming anything, just making the point that a radical reshuffle makes life difficult for anyone coming in as leader by limiting their ability to shape the shadow cabinet to their own liking.
47. You seem to be suffering from a mild form of Tourette’s syndrome.
45 - made me laugh - lets be honest, DW is hardly of the John Bercow brigade now
Interesting thing is, as the front-runners are in place now, surely Willetts has got to be favourite to take over from GO if he doesn’t perform. As for the “poor performance” against GB and Vince Cable, the guy is 20 years their junior, so not really surprised.
People said a similar thing about TB when he was first made a senior minister at 35 - wasn’t he up against Parky in those days?
I imagine the reasoning behind the reshuffle is to give the main leadership contenders the chance to shine, or to fail, as the case may be.
Is it really possible that Osborne could be made leader? He’s 33, so could be a year older when the change happens. That’s still very, very, young - he’d be PM under 40 if he won the election.
MH has basically put all the contenders in the frame - and Cameron’s post is still high profile. It’s going to be fun to watch this unfold!
The next Party Conference will be one big beauty contest. Last time that happened Hailsham won all the cheers and it availed him nothing. This time it will be more important if the members continue to have some say in the process ( electoral college). David Cameron is well placed. Easier to shine against Ruth Kelly and if he had been promoted too high there would have been a huge amount of jealousy. Most MPs know that George Osborne is too young to get it- including George Osborne. If you fail at that age what next? I suspect David Cameron feels that way too. Davis vs Rifkind looks favourite still. Hague’s making too much money. He’ll accept a senior Cabinet post in 2009/2014 but nothing more. I suspect he was asked to participate but said no. He will find it difficult to run now.
51. Just thought Tony might have more to offer him, than waiting for Osborne to die. I suspect that, unlike the posters on this site, Willetts is not “dyed in the wool”.
55 - actually he is - his mum is my uncle’s godmother - my aunt is a died in the wool socialist and hates her - the family are v v blue, although in comparison to the family he is actually a lefty
this leadership contest is giong to drag until the end months of the year.
i doubt osborne will run for the leadership now that hes shadow chancellor. it all looks set for cameron running. cameron/osborne top two will go down well with the electorate.
54. I really must try and go to the Conf. I was offered a chance to speak last time I was a member!
56. Do you really think that a couple of teenage (looking) public schoolboys are what the voters are waiting for?
58. Keep up the panto John - great fun.
(58 Oh, but to be serious for a mo’ the last teenage-looking public schoolboy who went to Oxford just got re-elected for the third successive time … in case you haven’t noticed.)
58. definitely. they will do what tony and gordon did.
the conservative party needs to modernise or it will die.
57. You know, I suppose, that berk is rhyming slang, and quite offensive, or are you too young to have learned that?
62 - Wow. You learn a new thing every day.
Dont often agree with Stanley Kalms - but he was spot on saying make the change as quickly as possible. I think he said “Every day is a day wasted”
On the other hand as a Lib Dem every day is a day gained.
59. You really should see a doctor about your affliction.
64 - Stanley Kalms is wrong. How can there be any rush when the opponents at the next election are going to offer a completely different challenge than the current government?
65 I am a Doctor
Maybe Howard’s setting Osbourne up for a fall?
just a thought…
61. In which case good luck to them. If they succeed to the same extent as TB & GB then this country will be an even better place than it is now. And I will be as pleased as anyone, honestly. So there!
69. but more importantly…whos your money on for the next leader?
if the party get their say it will most likely be davis, and the odds will shorten once its known they will get their way. if its likely they will get their way, wouldnt it be wise to put the money on davis now, rather than later? and when will we know the timetable/the rules for the leadership election?
if the party have their say cameron can be in with a good chance. but im not sure whos the most popular tory mp amongst tory mps…?
Richard H, Just wait, John ‘El Panto’ is limbering up for (yet)another Meet-Me-On-Knutsford Heath moment :).
Interesting that few on this thread have so far mentioned Francis Maude as Party Chairman. I agree with Adam Boulton on Sky that this appointment does signal MH’s to pursue an outward looking agenda, perhaps made more focused as Maude himself is most unlikely to be a leadership contender.
Cameron (and Osborne) remain way too unproven. Comparisons with Blair and Brown are premature - both had considerable experience and had made quite an impact on the Labour Party before Blair became leader.
Rifkind’s job at work and pensions may not be a lowly as it first seems. With the pension crisis looming this could be the big issue of the parliament.
60. Interesting point that Labour is now better able to accomodate an ex-public school boy/ex Etonian than the Tory Party. I was rather surprised to read all the requirements for becoming leader that I’ve read on this site. It seems that in reverse order of inverted snobbery; Old Etonian with happily married parents and a plummy accentis an absolute no no! Public shool but not Eton with accoutrements not much better. Wealthy family private but not public school is better but still no. Wealthy parents but state school much better but not perfect. Single parent from brought up on a council estate attending state school……PERFECT! David (pro hanging)Davis.
RE 74: The labour party has frequently been led by public schoolboys, whilst the Conservative party has not in recent years.
67. Reminds me of the suicidally depressed Russian who’s doctor suggests the only possible cure is a visit to the circus to see the great clown, Groc. “I am Groc”, is the reply.
……who still believes in a good flogging.
My favourite if Michael Gove is too new would be Ann Widdecombe.
I’m not kidding John - this is hilarious stuff from you!
Well, whatever John’s views, I cannot help but be excited by this shadow cabinet. A week ago today several people on this board were talking about the meltdown of the Conservative Party. I think that’s not only been proved wrong, there is an extremely positive future for the Party.
77. Do you really think that Widdecombe is the best for the tories to win an election?
Andrea, I think Roger is having a little harmless fun…and why not say I. (Blimey, I hope he is or an appointment with Dr RichardH might be advisable
)
This is an extremely positive future for the party……If you had just landed from Mars and you heard these words you would know instantly they were talking about the Tory party…………again
Surely the best tory strategy must be for Howard to stay as long as Blair, hopefully (and probably, IMO) 3+ years, then George and Dave move in to take on Gordon and ANO.(not neccesarily in that order).
I think that given an article in the Guardian that a 2.5% swing is more tham enough to remove Labour’s majority, then th Conservatives can have that as a serious aim. Whereas the swing required to move into a majority still seems beyond them.
The problem for the Conservatives in a hung parliament is likely to magnify the importance of the Lib Dems. So calling a further snap election may have unpredictable results.
JohnO. What were you saying about your new aspiring chancellor on the other thread?
Andrea. I was only half jesting. I have a real soft spot for Ann W. She is one of the few originals in a world of clones (Present company excepted)
Seems a very shrewd move for Howard timing wise don’t you think? The thought must have been that this would overshadow the Kalms story and it will probably pay off. Also fielding a pretty strong shadow Cabinet contrasts nicely with the mess Blair has got himself into and shows that Howard still is in control.
Why have we had no discussion about what is happening with the LibDems? Are they seriously considering the Local Income Tax?
80. He mentioned her after Michael Gove, so I was afraid he was seriously suggesting her (or maybe he was seriousm but he was speaking from a Labour perspective).
With Widdecombe, after the “save the pound” and the immigration, the campaign focus will be “save your verginity”.
74, 75 - Rise of the Garagistes …
86. Labour are certainly considering Local Income Tax. Reason for Raynesford’s departure, apparantly.
86 - we’ve decided to defer our Beauty Contest. I was going to say good job too, but one or two of our new intake …
86 - *ditching the Local income tax
86 - it’s got something to do with the fact that the thread is headed ‘Will Tories back the Hague rollercoaster?’ and is about the Conservative leadership succession. Mind you, threads do wander off topic!
83.
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that a simple 2.5% swing is what is needed? I know its been said a million times over the last few days but, come 2009, with Blair and Iraq out of the way, huge swathes of the voters that Labour lost to the Lib Dems will come back into the fold.
I know that there are going to be problems during over this term - the economy could begin to go wrong (although it seem unlikely to implode the way some think it will) and tax and pensions could be a problem - but are conservatives on this board so naive as to think that 2005 to 2009 will be a simple linear progression?
87.“save your verginity”. Sorry, Andrea, is that a Green policy?
93 - John, but you forget that for all the “Brownites” coming back into the fold, they’ll be passing all the “Blairites” going the other way. Where this group goes to will determine who wins the next election.
95 - Don’t forget the “anti-Howardites”
I believe hague was on a log flume on that picture!
93. I certainly don’t think it will be ’simple’, but I also think that if anyone thinks it cannot happen they are living in cloud cuckoo land. The Conservatives are back for the first time really since 1997 and have a genuine chance of power. There’s a long way to go though. I want to see us winning council elections, going over 40% in the polls, and taking the odd by-election.
Never underestimate the Tories capacity for civil war alex. Because several on here think the shadow cabinet appointments are reasonable don’t count on the dispossesed to feel the same. Conservatives have always been the most difficult to keep in line because they go for individual good rather than the collective good.
98 - The next leader is going to be slightly unfortunate that there aren’t that many more council seats that the Tories can realistically expect to win. They must be getting close to their peak.
93.
I really dont think that there is as much difference between Brownites and Blairites as people imagine. The major differences are over technical issues that the wider electorate don’t care about.
I certainly feel that Labour will win back more support from returning Lib Dems than they lose to the conservatives over fears that Brown is somehow ‘old Labour’
sorry…i mean 95..not 93
101 - I assume Tabman was talking about the wider electorate when he was referring to “brownites” and “blairites”
War will break out over the Europe issue again, especially given the 25 odd seats which the Tories may have won (although this begs the question of how many they might have lost with an anti - Eu stance!)
I cannot see the Tories coming back with this unresolved.
104 - the Europe thing is only a problem electorally because the Tories have been proven incapable in recent years of attracting votes from the centre. Change that and UKIP are less of an issue - every vote won in the centre is worth two lost at the fringe.
George Osbourne getting a boost from ITN, who ask in their headlines: “will this man be the Tory saviour?”
He could get quite a momentum going from his promotion.
I don’t think Osborne is a serious contender
103.
I know. And I dont think there is such as thing as Brownites and Blairites in the electorate. The closest the electorate comes to this is “People who voted Labour in 2005″ & “People who would have voted Labour if not for Blair”
Roger @84, But that was yesterday, old thing, and I was in ying mode. This evening I’m so very yang…
108 - Every instinct in Blair’s body is to stuff the Tories. Every time he sensed they might have stumbled upon a popular policy he acted to close it down, regardless of how incongrous it seemed with what you would expect a Labour party to be doing. I just do not think Brown will operate in the same way. Those who liked Blair as “the best Tory Prime Minister available” will not feel the same way about Brown.
I don’t see that Osborne has the better of Cameron here. Osborne is in real difficulty up against Brown - but whoever is in post there would suffer, it’s as though Howard is throwing that battle away in the very short term. Cameron really does have a chance of looking good in opposition to Ruth Kelly though
Richard at 98. Sorry but here’s a reality check. Tories didn’t move. Your graph from 97 is a straight line!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/gainsandlosses_con.stm
110.
Thats a fair point. However, what he lacks in Blair-type tactical thinking, he makes up for in strategic thinking. I think he’ll take the long view and get the electorate on board over the long term - progressive consensus and all that. There’s some startling figures on how much voters want inequality tackled and I don’t think that being bold on things like that would neccessarily lead to electoral defeat.
111. Well, except that it’s time to drive a horse & cart through Brown’s alleged good handling of the economy. It’s beginning to look extremely flaky.
114.
A lot of people have said this. Whats the evidence? Im not arguing, i genuinely would like to know.
Yes, he’s overspent/underestimated growth in tax reciepts but surely this isnt going to kill the economy? The UK still has a low debt-GDP ratio and, if taxes have to go up, the UK still remains very competitive in terms of tax levels
Brown verses Osbourne? Well Osbourne has all the aces.
Much of the economy is going backwards not forward. Manufacturing is officially in recession, high street sales are in reverse, unemployment is rising as we are seeing redundancies by the thousands and we still tax rises to come.
And Osbourne was just a child when unemployment was at 3m: harder for Brown to hark back to the Tory days.
So let’s see how well 54 year old Brown explains all this to 33 year old George Osbourne.
I think I have an idea who will come out smelling like roses in the media.
Osbourne is a bad choice for Shadow Chancellor IMHO, but then it is the promotion required to keep him out of the leadership race and onto a joint Cameron/Osbourne ticket. Ancram to Defence & Deputy Leader and Letwin to Environment are brilliant moves, as is Maude becoming Chairman and Fox to Foreign Affairs. Shame there’s nothing more for Spelman and May and no job for Hague or Clarke at all. Rifkind has a cushy number at Pensions - expect a big job from next leader / in 2007.
JohnO. You mentioned that Osborne was an Old Etonian but you didn’t mention that he was heir to a baronetcy! I’ve just seen him on TV and though he’s articulate he is still 33 going on 60.
Great Shdow Cabinet - Letwin can be nice against Beckett and Cameron should do well against Kelly.
It will be hilarious to see the two styles of Blunkett and Rifkind - for once the Tories will have the calm, measured speaker, not the loud forceful one!
Overall it shows the party has some real talent still, and gives them all a chance to show what they can do. Interesting appointment is Andrew Mitchell too, heard positive things about him - are there odds on him?
Letwin to environment is an excellent move. He won’t have to leave Dorset
The Letwin demotion is probably the best news for the tores. Has he been effective at any post he’s held?
If I, as an unreconstructed lefty, tell you I am really impressed by Howard’s reshuffle- that’s an end to the old ‘who can you name in the Shadow Cabinet?’ dinner-party game now- can you tell me two things in return?
1. Why on earth would anyone want Hague back? Surely he and his 14 pints ended up as nothing but a joke?
2. Why do none of you rate Theresa May? She was easily the most human and impressive Tory during the campaign, in my view. I thought Osborne made a real mess of his briefings on the economy, though admittedly having to second guess Letwin didn’t exactly help.
3. Are the Tories really going to use up their young talent before they’re ready all over again? Surely GO & DC have a much better chance of being heavy-weights in ten years time if they aren’t exposed as light-weights now. You may point to Tony Blair- but then Tony has always had loyal heavyweights ‘minding’ and protecting him- as Charles Kennedy does, too. But who’s going to protect Osborne if he gets the leadership now? Not Malcolm Rifkind, surely.
Well, MH is serious about blocking Davis, isn’t he! I’m beginning to think that he’s also serious about skipping generations & making a definite break with the past administration. The longevity of the association of him as implementer of the poll tax won’t have been lost on him - it was just too easy as a sound bite that sticks for the other parties.
Just heard Osborne on R4’s PM a while ago, he gave a good interview. For me he made all the right noises - namely working to broaden the appeal of the Tories, read “no lurch to the right”. Cameron’s a good appointment for Education - it’s a prominent position & he’ll get the sort of air time that he’s been lacking to date.
Why GO rather than DC for Shadow Chancellor? Well, possibly because he’s already been working close to the position under Letwin, and he should be intimately familiar with the brief.
And if MH really is grooming DC to replace him then the comment about having been leapfrogged by GO doesn’t hold - that would be pointing towards a DC/GO duo.
As long as they both perform, that is!
DC’s Eton background has already been questioned on PM for someone in the Education spot. GO very quickly pointed out Ruth Kelly’s Westminster school background….
118 - Osborne went to St Paul’s not Eton. Arguably less elitist than Fettes! Both Oxford, which is good!
119. Rifkind, calm and measured? Last time I saw him on TV he looked, and sounded like, a combination of the march hare and the mad hatter. He was literally foaming at the mouth about the war and Blair.I could see the spittle flying.
Re. Europe - a little OT, but I just thought it was worth pointing out (after last night’s exchanges here…) that the European parliament is voting tomorrow on the vital issue of the opt-out from the 48-hr working week, and the Liberal Democrat and Conservative MEPs are shoulder-to-shoulder in favour of keeping it.
TB, on the other hand, is being shafted by the Labour MEPs.
IMHO Osborne is the only man capable of taking the Tories to a general election victory (meaning majority) in the 2009-13 period, but his handicap is, obviously, his age. I believe MH is trying to keep him out of the running by putting him up against Brown, which I think is a pity, in favour of David Cameron. This is a mistake, because unfortunately for the Conservative Party, Cameron looks like an Eton-educated toff: he just exudes centuries of good breeding, horses and Barbour jackets. This is not reverse-snobbery on my part, but the man looks like a rah, (it shouldn’t matter but it will to many people when they see him on TV); if the Conservatives are to maintain the improvement in their poll numbers with C2’s they would be well advised to give him a wide berth for leader. I think the Conservative Party has to take a long view here, and elect a leader who will stay on even if the party doesn’t manage to make great inroads in 2009/10, but who will see the ‘project’ through, and I think Osborne is the man for that job. (For that reason alone I really hope they don’t pick him!)
Roger @119 Don’t think that was me (hope not) as I knew that Osborne went St Pauls as RichardH has noted. Cameron is the OE. I just don’t warm to the cliquey, mildly supercilious, noblesse oblige air which the Notting Hill Set exude.
But, hey, let’s see how both cope now they’re right in the front line. I may be pleasantly surprised.
Interesting Reshuffle. My updated thoughts. Fox at Foreign Affairs, is good particularly with the EU referendum coming up. Ancram was weak in that slot and is in general past it. I personally think Davis should have been promoted to Shadow Chancellor. The only man to get even with Brown was Howard. You don’t get anywhere by trying to take him on at an economic level. The best way to get at him is sloganisining on the whole. DD also has form in duo he knocked out of the home office. He would scare Brown. Cameron should then have gone to Home affairs. He would give it a more liberal tinge (which we need) and has the experience to do it having been a special adviser to Howard when he was home secretary. Therefore Osbourne should have gone to education. Rifkind at pensions is fine. He would be no good as shadow chancellor and is too compromised to go to defence or foreign affairs.
Letwin at DEFRA is clever. One the issues he is dealing with are directly revelant to the West country constituency he represents and two, the conservatives need to do some thinking on climate change. While Letwin is not a great deliverer of policy, he is a strong thinker. As for the other changes, the only interesting one’s of note are Andrew Mitchell’s promotion to Int Development as he is an ex minister, left for too long on the backbenches and a Davis supporter.
However, I am sceptical about Maude as Party Chairman. Strikes me as being poor on TV and too much of a plotter. Also think Spelman and Willetts should have been promoted further up the chain.
130 - but I think Howard was sending out a clear message - this is about the future not the past, and that’s the lead on all the headlines this evening. It’s a brilliant way of telling people that we’re looking to the future and that we mean business.
But Osborne is no mug - he’s been working behind the scenes for ages. And Brown is not imo the heavyweight he is made out. He’s making a muck up of public finances and needs to be taken to task over it.
I subscribe to the image is almost everything theory (although I don’t agree with it) and I see Osbourne as the Tory equivalent Blair during the John Smith days.
In 1994 when Blair became Labour leader, he was good looking with a good head of hair and was still looking very youthful (at 41). He was slightly camp, very articulate, of the centre and represented a step change in image terms over the former leaders of his party. Osbourne has all of those same qualities.
Just by the way he looks and talks, Osbourne will attract the notice of female voters, gay voters and youth voters, as Blair did.
Although not camp, David Owen could be another comparison, the youngest Foreign Secretary whose dashing good looks made him a housewives favourite.
Sorry to say it, but in this age of celebrity and vanity, George Osborne (or a good female contender such as Caroline Spellman) would outpoll Tim Yeo etc on image alone.
I thought I should post this. It might make some of you laugh: A comment from Matthew Parris in the Times. The last line is classic.
Matthew Parris, the former Tory MP and Times columnist said earlier this year: “They are the sort of Tory you would be happy for your daughter to invite for the weekend: young, moderate, rather metropolitan, nicely presented and eminently sane.
“They are smooth rather than inflammatory: the Classic FM of politics. They adore the word ‘mainstream’. They love metaphors about ‘common ground’. They are hugely caring and compassionate. They do not cut themselves when shaving, as other men do. They are, in short, delightful and clever young men. And they talk a load of balls.”
Sarah at 123:
Personally, I do rate Theresa May (although as she’s my MP here, perhaps I’m biased).
It does appear to me that a Davis/May ticket would cover all bases.
128: If Cameron is a ‘rah’ what does that make Osborne? St Paul’s, and Magdalen College, Oxford, is about as rah as you can get. Osborne is a posh, modern Conservative - the Tories’ answer to the Hugh Grant Love Actually character.
Why on earth is Hague second favourite? The bookies must be ecstatic.
I was interested to read that not everyone seems as happy as the Tories on here about the reshuffle! http://www.davidorfox.blogspot.com and http://www.concom.blogspot.com seem like they might not be big Maude fans!
126. the war had that effect on lots of us and I imagine it will tend to cause people to think more highly of Rifkind
Couple of points. It really is boring since the end of the election. Perhaps it is not being an anorak (honest), or maybe it is not being a member of the Conservative Party, but this really isn’t that exciting - sorry Tories
2 Are John Riley and RichardH the same person - there seemed to be a mix up earlier? or was I being too suspicious?
All in all - I think that politicos get too excited over the meaning of appointments. Osborne probably got the shadow chancellor job because he knew one end of a calculator from another - did he do ’science’ and Cameron do Classics? I do agree that Willets being given ‘pensions’ is a bit of a kick in the teeth - I mean important or not, where’s the thrills and spills - I presume you have to make your own fun in that department (is there betting on what member of the shadow cabinet is the first to resign over an affair?).
All in all - wake me up in 2008 so we can see where we are then - there maybe something good to bet on (although Arsenal for the Premiership next season looked a little long in Ladbrokes ;-)).
Keep up Graham! Willets got given “pensions” at least two reshuffles ago
137. Fine, as long as he and his admirers don’t get anywhere near government. As for the tories attitude to the war, well, dishonest hardly gets near it. Saying nothing would have been bad enough, but to slander TB for doing something they would have done more readily than he, is truly despicable. Soames leaving the front line is not unconnected with this. But he’s a gent. You blues need to know there are a few million of us who feel like this about you. Your smart new team hasn’t got a dogs chance.
138.”is there betting on what member of the shadow cabinet is the first to resign over an affair?”
so Edwina Currie is publishing the second part of her memories..
or maybe Kimberly Queen will make happy a shadow minister too.
138. RichsrdH and I could only make contact in the mind of Brahma.
No, I am I and no-one else!
MH to step down by the end of the year (DTel and BBC1)
I see Blair is 13/2 to beat Thatcher’s stay. When would he beat her?
Its looking good for George Osbourne, a long fawning article on BBC ten o clock news.
145. Not a set-up, then? I’m not convinced that George is the BBC’s type. He’s my MP, by the way.
MH to step down so he can spend more time in his crypt.
144 - roughly Nov 2008 - as I have said many times on this site, he will hang on like grim death until then, whatever damage he inflicts on the party by so doing
ITV at 6.30 were even more effusive - they led the piece with ‘Is this the Tory Saviour’! Going to watch ITN 10.30 and see how they do it.
I really don’t agree with 138. This is going to be a much more exciting Parliament, with all sorts of intrigues in both main parties. We also have the possibility of a Euro referendum next year. And whatever your views, whatever you think of us, there is no doubt that the Conservatives have a new spring in the step. You may find it misplaced, but it’s there.
148. Good bet, then!
As I see it all of the truly successful (and politically savy) party leaders only stood for the leadership once, i.e. when they won. They only stood when they had a good chance of winning. They did not stand at previous elections and lose. Gordon Brown has not yet stood for the leadership and is probably now in a stronger position because he did not lose to Blair.
By selecting Howard the tories chose somebody who did not make the top three in the two previous elections. This showed how desperate the tories were at the time.
In my view anybody young (in political terms) would be foolish to stand for the leadership now unless they had pretty good reason to think they were going to be successful.
Now we have Hague and Davis as the front runners. However nice a person Hague might be he failed just about as badly as it was possible to fail. I don’t agree that nobody else would have done any better. As I recall everybody expected at least a little progress, say 20/30 seats for the tories in 2001.
Davis didn’t make the top three last time but is now favourite. Has the standard dropped? Would somebody so poorly thought of by his close colleagues really make a successful leader? Maybe he would but history is not on his side. Howard, Foot and Callaghan all eventually made it to the top job but all were emphatically rejected by the electorate at the first opportunity.
George and Dave on newsnight. Parris is spot on.
Got to say I really like Francis Maude.
Howard has announced he will step down in the autumn to ensure a new leader by Christmas. Another shrewd tactical move which puts him one step ahead of Blair.
150 - absolutely, I will be putting my money where my mouth is in quite a big way on this one !
Andrew Milne - way back hours ago you said Francis Maude wasn’t good on TV. He was terrific just now on Newsnight - came across as immensely likeable. I know he was a Portillista, but he seems to me a good man. Anyone inside want to put me right?!
155. Me too.
45 If you really think Willetts would go Labour you have no idea about the good man.
I havew to say I think he should have been made the Shadow Chancellor - but then again im not MH.
45 If you really think Willetts would go Labour you have no idea about the good man.
I havew to say I think he should have been made the Shadow Chancellor - but then again im not MH.
159. But why the ‘two brains’ tag then …? I mean he seems alright, decent enough. But he won’t lead us to victory imo.
(Again) Richard beats me: I too thought Maude was extraordinarily impressive, so much so that even Paxo let him get words in edgeways.
159. I’m only reflecting on what he’s been saying over the last month or two. Perhaps it’s because he’s the only tory who says yes but … rather than no … For example yes, Labour has done well there, but not well enough ….It’s an old salesman’s trick, and being an old salesman, I suppose I’ve happily fallen for it!
161. Paxo only gave an easy time because it doesn’t matter a f***.
And how we laughed……. While the new party Chairman is talking on newsnight about his hopes to avoid the party sinking into political oblivion the Tories on this site are preparing for government. ….
Richard @160: The two brains ‘tag’ is because of his great intellect and isn’t used an insult at all. David has written a lot of great books and really knows the pensions bit like the back of his hand. Check out “Modern Conservatism” (1992 Penguin) Also, don’t forget David was also the Paymaster General towards the end of the last Tory government which must be a big bonus in terms of experience.
Well, I have to admit I may be biased as I am from Havant - but I think David has a lot to contribute to the work needed to get the next Tory government in.
161. I mean, “what d’you think you got wrong”, “I’d rather not say”. You could see Paxo didn’t give a toss.
163 - Surely past your bed time? All this niceness must be fatiguing at your age.
Maude was impressive as he usually is. He is the only realist in the Tory party since the demise of Portillo. He has been saying since ‘97 that if the party didn’t change it’d die and now at one minute to midnight he’s invited to come and help save it’s life.
What he’s actually been invited to do is to save Howards reputation. As the arch moderniser he with others was about to publicly expose the paucity of Howards election campaign. By creating a distraction with this bizarre new shadow cabinet and by giving his arch critic a job he’s hoping to mute the criticism. Some chance!
John Riley / Richard H - I am still suspicious. You denied at the same time. It’s as if you pressed ‘Say It!’ and carried on typing in the same movement
Alex: Willets, Hague, IDS, Nicholas Soames, General Pinochet - they’re all left overs from a past age and I get lost I must admit. Whoever ‘got pensions’ (I heard earlier, but it sank in like a hot knife through butter - i.e. in and out the other side - apologise for my stupidity) received the political equivalent of a kick in the balls.
But really, all this Tory shuffling - is it what they need right now? I mean it draws attention to them sure - but what it really does is draw attention away from Blair/Brown. I mean Gordon couldn’t have done better himself if he had shouted “look - over there” whilst slipping his skeen dhu (is that how you spell it) from his dour Scottish sock and slammed it repeatedly in between the shoulder blades of his nearest neighbour…
Meanwhile the country are not thinking what any of them are thinking because they’re off to see whether Arsenal can put the nail in Fergie’s coffin for good (just in time for the Glazer revolution), and contemplating whether Freddie Flintoff will be ready to see off Warney in a dramatic 8th wicket stand to win the Ashes.
Sorry for rambling - but my point is that the movements in the Tory Party are the equivalent to orienteering as a specator sport. Even Paxo thought so - his most telling sign was when he looked at his watch during the interview with Maude - not because Maude was particularly boring, but beause the whole bl**dy subject was.
Anyway - on that note - I shall go to bed and see whether my wife has any further thoughts on the matter. Or maybe she will be already asleep before contemplating David Osborne - or is it George Cameron?
135. I didn’t say Osborne wasn’t a Rah, but rather that Cameron looks like one. In this televisual age the distinction is very important.
170 FWIW I’ve spoken to some of my Tory pals from Oxford in 85-88. Apart from being dismissive of “lefty Vaizey” and expressing disappointment that Mennear didn’t win Finchley back, none of them have any memory whatsoever of Cameron. He was not a player. That seems rather strange, doesn’t it?
<