Will David Davis be rewarded for his forbearance in 2003?
May 25th, 2005
-
Will standing aside for Howard assure him the succession?
Could the latest Conservative turmoil over the proposed changes in procedures for choosing the leader be just what David Davis needs to ensure that it is he who takes over from Michael Howard later in the year?
For his supporters, no doubt, will remind colleagues how their man’s forbearance in October and November 2003 spared the party a divisive battle that could have left big scars in the run up to the General Election. For it was his decision not to contest the leadership on the night of the confidence vote on Ian Duncan Smith that led to Michael Howard’s smooth transition.
[This move, incidentally was first revealed on the Betfair betting screens when with an hour to go before the voting closed David Davis’s price on succeeding IDS suddenly jumped from 2/1 to 10/1. Somebody who knew something at 5.30 pm made a nice profit two or three hours before David Davis’s formal statement.]
David Davis continues to be the firm favourite in the Next Tory leader market and so far few other serious challengers have emerged.
Under the proposed changes any Conservative MP who can get the support of 20 of his/her colleagues will go forward to a national convention where representatives from the grass-roots of the party will rate the candidates in order. It would then be for Conservative MPs to make the final decision. The aim is to avoid a situation where a candidate who does not have the support of colleagues in the Commons is foisted on MPs by the membership as a whole.
-
But isn’t there are danger that under the proposed new system the party at large could have foisted on them a leader who doesn’t command their support?
Assuming Davis will get 20 MPs to support him then it would seem pretty likely that he’ll make the number one spot at the national convention. It’s also likely that the former Conservative Chancellor who has been rebuffed twice for the leadership, Ken Clarke, would receive a pretty low rating at this meeting because of his support for the EU. It then might be quite hard for the party’s MPs to reject the “grass-root” choice particularly after the way Michael Howard’s election worked in 2003.
The 2/1 on David Davis is a fair price.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
From Simon Hoggart in the Guardian yesterday - on David Davis
“He made some good points, particularly about the utter incompetence of the Home Office when it has anything to do with computers. But even this assault tailed off. As one Tory says, “David is so clever that all this speech-making stuff bores him to death.
“And if he bores himself, think what he’ll do to the electorate.”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1490844,00.html
This Davis chap sounds perfect from the Lib Dems point of view - When is the market on the second largest party at next election going to open?
I can’t see anyone apart from David Davis becoming leader, he just seems to be totally unstopable.
Indeed Iacrus @ 1, so perfect for the LibDems that he managed to obtain a 3% swing away from you and in his favour on May 5th.
The advantage of delaying the leadership contest is that it gives the opportunity for candidates to demonstrate that they are totally unsuitable for the job of being leader.
So far, Andrew Lansley and Tim Yeo have demonstrated that they most definitely don’t have what it takes, and hopefully, others will do so in the coming weeks.
Dammit John O, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Sean, I still reckon that on the “taking thewords right out of my mouth” stakes, the score is Fear 7 O’Reilly 1 !
Will the next tory leader be a success as leader of the opposition? The key questions are: how will he grow into the job? Has he charm? Has he the energy?
Clearly IDS couldn’t (tough to predict?), and MH appeared charmless (media assination, or a poor TV manner?). On energy, they were both adequate.
All are assumed competent. How somebody grows into a job is unknown, although all do to some extent. Has DD both the charm and the energy?
We’ll see what the tory MPs think…
3. 3% for £48,000 “invested” before the election that’s £19,000/% in one constituency!
3 - The swing to Davis probably owed far more to the amount of money poured into the campaign in his constituency rather than any strong appeal of his .
Overall it is rather worrying that there is such a dearth of leadership potential in both the Labour and Conservative parties .
With Labour you have GB and then who ? Clarke you are joking .
With the Conservatives DD and then who ? Clarke yes but probably too old , the failed Hague and a couple of promising younger contenders .
The Lib Dems by contrast seem to have several high quality contenders should CK decide to step down .
You can only have one leader.
As far as Labour and the Conservatives are concerned, the contemporary talent pool is so poor that the leadership tends to fast-track the young and promising before they are ready (Miliband and Kelly, or Cameron or Osborne now), leaving them open to the risk of burnout.
The reason the Libdems have more “quality contenders” (if indeed they genuinely do) is because they have the advantage that their leader does not have to measure up as a potential prime minister. In addition, the fact that the vast majority of their MPs have only been in Parliament for 8 years none can be dismissed as “too inexperienced”, since there are no MPs of experience to measure up against.
“When is the market on the second largest party at next election going to open?”
What, so sensible people like me can take money off over optimistic Lib Dems again?
10 - Yes Alex but it would be nice to have a choice of more than top quality candidate
12 - The first part of your statement may well be true but the second part is clearly not as you have Beith , Hughes and Campbell with more than 8 years parliamentary experience .
Alex @ 12 - thats just childish a quarter of Tory MPs have only been there less than 3 weeks - whats your point? of course the LibDems have experienced MPs - Alan Beith elected in 1972, Simon Huges in 1983, matthew taylor in 1987, Nick Harvey & Don Foster in 1992.
How many of the supposed Tory contenders actually measure up as potential PMs? Fox or Lansley - I’d say not. Frankly there are very few (in a Parliamentary party 3 times as large as the LDs).
On the general point - Davis is the favourite & I think a very credible candidate - he’s not the greatest Commons performer but neither is Blair & who really cares? He’s perfectly adequate at the despatch box and is infact very good at TV - he handled Newsnight very well when they trailed him around his constituency during the campaign. His problem is whether he is ideological agile enough to move the Tories to the centre. The only other viable alternative (I rule out Rifkind & Clarke, as too old and too leftwing)is David cameron, he put in a very good performance last night closing the Education debate on the Queen’s Speech, relaxed, funny focussed - his problem though is his age (shades of William Hague) and inverse snobbery, I just can’t see the Tories getting away with having a toff as their leader.
My heart says the Tories will go for Davis, but my head says that the favourite never wins the Tory leadership race. I would not rule out the Tories dropping the ball again at the last minute and in a bid to stop Davis picking a hopeless dark horse like Fox.
Mark @ 15 - you beat me to it
But only 11% (7 out of 62) of the current LD Parliamentary corps were elected before 1997 - a much lower proportion than the other main parties.
18 - that’s the fault of FPTP!
yes but whats the point of the post - that because most iof the party is young there are no experienced people to compare themselves to? The one elected in 1997 spent the last 2 parliaments with even more people who had long experience such as Paddy Ashdown (elected in 1983) and Paul Tyler (first elected in 1974.
Is your third Parliament a long enough period to run for Party Leader? I think so - Blair was in his 3rd when he beacme leader in 94 (elected in 83) Major was in his in 90 (elected in 79). I just dont get the point that is being made.
I am amazed by the gall and/or stupidity of the comment at 10 ref. Davis pouring money into H&H. The Liberal Democrats target very few seats (in a nationwide sense) and throw the vast, vast proportion of their admittedly lower budget into those seats. I would be very surprised if they hadn’t spend as much/more than Davis in the run-up to the GE and the full legal maximum during the campaign. Both parties spent a fortune, Davis won, LibDems lost.
Sorry, the comment to which I refer was at 9. Apologies.
I actually think the post-1997 LD bulge is an advantage. It provides the party with a useful clutch of potential medium-term leaders.
I don’t think Davis’ LD opponent would have spent 50k in the last few months. LD finances don’t stretch to that. I doubt that the money was the reason Davis won though.
Interesting watching how long it took the Tories to realise that telling their members they are a useless bunch that can’t be trusted to choose their leader is not very bright. Think the Telegraph cartoon caption “We dont care what you are thinking” summed it up.
If you dont trust your members how can you expect the electorate to trust you.
I’m sure that direct mail targetting played a major role in Davis winning, and that does cost a bundle - especially if you send out videos/dvds as Davis did.
Also, the Tories spent a fortune on direct mail & telephone canvassing from the centre during the campaign. The LDs did as well but not nearly on the same scale. Davis won beacuse the Tories fought a much beeter, more focussed & more professional campaign in their target seats than the Libdems
I agree with Bullseye - Davies is head and shoulders above the rest of the Tories but the front-runner hasn’t won the Tory leadership for decades.
We know Davies is very illiberal but that is only likely to win him votes. Is he right-wing in other respects? Do we know if he’s a big tax-cutter? He won’t stress his centrist credentials, if any, before the national party have had their say.
There was a good point made about TV. In truth, Howard major weakness (apart from his past) was the fact that he did not come across well on television. The same was true for Hague and IDS as well (though Hague is much better now). This is why I think, there are only two credible candidates, Davis and Cameron. The rest do not come across well on the box. Fox is too aggressive and hawkish, Rifkind too scottish and pompous and as for Lansley the other candidate being mooted, he reminds me of an on message labour spindoctor. Incidentally there in one other candidate that comes across well on the box, Ken Clarke, but his views on Europe (and also lack of views on anything else) make him a no hoper in the race.
It wasn’t a party political point. My point was simply a response to Mark saying that the LibDems had an abundance of candidates for leader in the event the Kennedy stood down compared with the other two parties. I was simply suggesting that a large number of these “potential candidates” would quickly become “non-candidates” if they were assessed in the same way as those of the other two parties. So, for example, Mark doesn’t even consider David Cameron (presumably on the ground of “youth and inexperience”) even though his experience is probably not that much different to many of the LibDem ‘candidates’.
My point wasn’t to say that the LibDems have no longer serving members, simply that their relative lack of them makes most LibDem MPs look much more experienced almost by default.
Perhaps Mark could give his list of “several high quality candidates”. I’m sure we could whittle them down pretty quickly.
I think the ideal number of serious potential candidates is probably 2-3 (1 is too risky in case you end up with some joke leader in an attempt to ’stop’ the first, and more than 3 just becomes ludicrous).
Labour probably only had two serious candidates in 1994 (one of whom didn’t stand!) and they did alright
george osbourne was brilliant! (in his first speech as shadow chancellor) new shadow cabinet SHOULD be: David Davis (Leader) Osbourne (Chancellor) Hague (Foreign Secretary) Fox (Home Secretary) Clarke (Deputy Leader) Willetts (Pensions) Richard Shepherd (Leader of the House) Spellman (Education) Julie Kirkbride (health) Bercow (International Development) Rifkind (Party Chairman)
How illiberal is Davis likely to be in practice? In the last years of the Major government, he was good at sounding Eurosceptic as Minister for Europe, but behaving in a communitaire manner when he was actually in Brussels.
30 - What about David Cameron I thought he was class last night.
I also get the impression that the LibDems have a much “flatter” party structure - people can effectively gain a relatively high profile from any position in the party - in the other parties your credibility and chances of becoming leader have tended to depend on the job you held at the time the change occurred. It is perhaps no coincidence when things started going wrong for the Tories when the first got Major who had done most top jobs, but all in the space of a year, and then Hague who hadn’t done any (probably as a direct result of the Defence and Foreign Secs being kicked out in the ‘97 election, and the Home Sec being… well you know)
Osborne wasn’t that good: he was nervous, and not so good at dealing with interventions.
27. I agree the Tories fought a much more effective and focused campaign in target seats than in 2001 - they certainly did in Ludlow. But there were definitely a couple of other key issues which helped swing some of the more prosperous LD/Con marginals their way. These included:
Foxhunting - as a secondary factor rather than direct. It served to galvanise younger Tories who previously did not have any active involvement and gave rural torydom a sense of anger.
Local Income Tax - This played out as a disaster for the LD’s in places like Newbury, SW Surrey & Guildford. Figures were being quoted which suggested that people on middle incomes - and way way below higher rate tax level incomes - would be absolutely hammered by LIT. I had several people tell me that they were switching because of this.
I’m amazed at the suggestion in the Indy the other day that the policy review may keep LIT whilst ditching the 50% rate. that’s completely the wrong way around in my view…..
35 - I think the problem is that dropping the LIT would be seen as much more of a U-Turn, and an alternative policy would have to be put in its place. Much easier to drop the spending commitments that the 50% tax rate catered for, especially as it probably wouldn’t have covered them anyway. I guess it’s a wait and see policy on what happens with Top-up fees.
12 etc I also don’t understand why even relatively shorter lengths of service are a drawback. Surely it’s like any other job - your real experience depends on how much you’ve put into doing it, not how long you’ve been there. In addition, experience from the European parliament (where MEPs gain a lot more policy experience than is appreciated) shouldn’t be discounted.
35. Personally I favour keeping the LIT and introducing a flat tax (with high tax-free threshold) at national level as well. Those who lose out on one would win on the other. Would need a lowish national rate though (extra could come from e.g. environmental taxation).
I thought that Osbourne and Cameron were quite poor actually. As I type the Chancellor savaged Osbourne quite badly.
I think that Davis must be the most accomplished leader out there, and Fox would provide decent back-up (if he puts petty vanity aside). lansley and Yeo etc are just too lightweight for words.
If the blogosphere is any example- see http://www.davisorfox.blogspot.com for example- then Davis must be by far the favourite of any poll of the grassroots. David Cameron is being partisanly pushed forward by the Times, but no one really knows who he is in the same way that they know Rifkind, Davis and Fox.
I’m not an expert on the LIT but can someone explain how it works in areas with a disproportiomate number of elderly people (who would pay very little). The Scottish Borders is an example of such a place. We also don’t have that many high earners either, so who is it that would have to bare the tax burden?
I didn’t see Cameron’s performance, unfortunately. I think Osborne will do better in Questions than in debates: he was a good assistant to Hague at PMQs, and might be good at identifying killer points that provide good soundbites for the evening news. Interesting that the two shadows who have really scored against Brown have been Portillo and Howard.
A feature of the post-Tory landscape which hasn’t been commented on much is the disappearance of Letwin - shaowing DEFRA, he could easily fade into insignificance.
Max - it would work just as it works today. The total amount to be raised in any given authority would remain the same. Taxable income over 5k (and less than 100k) would be liable.
I thought that the real danger of LIT was that many of our people didn’t understand it and would plant the idea that it would cost high earners much more than was actually the case… an idea that was watered rather well by the Tories in particular.
Actually the areas with the highest proportion of pensioners are all in the South of England…
observer
surely the “post-Tory landscape” is only visible in the dreams of deluded LDs?
Re. 16, are you sure that Beith wasn’t elected in 1973? I agree absolutely with the comments re. Fox - apart from being aggressive, he also comes across as extremely smug and supercilious. Davis comes over far better on TV.
I don’t see why Fox is a necessary “big-hitter” within the Tory team. Why not put him back to Health? Also Rifkind wouldn’t be a suitable Chairman, not nearlly “rah” attacking enough. I think Osbourne as Shadow Chancellor and Hague as Shadow Foreign would be excellent. I’d put Cameron at Shadow Home, Forth back at Shadow Leader of the House, Willets at Shadow Work & Pensions, Bercow at Shad Int Dev, Lansley at Shadow Education, keep Maude at Party Chairman. I’d create a new Shadow Regions Secretary (covering Scot, Wales & NI) and put Rifkind in. Spelman could then be Shadow Environment, Green at Shadow Transport and Kirkbrdie as Shadow Culture & Fun Secretary. Boris returns as Shadow Chief Secrteray just to cheer us up.
I agree that several lib dems look like leadership material which rather points to their strange choice of leader. Would CK get into a Labour Cabinet? I rather doubt it. Infact I doubt he’d have got a senior job in the Tory Shadow Cabinet which considering their number of MP’s is saying something.
I heard Osborne for the first time in Parliament. Making allowances for it being his first speech in post he still doesn’t cut it. He has a squeaky voice and he sounds seriously inconsequential. David Davis could be OK but he stood for leader last time against a pretty indifferent field (including Anchram and IDS) and came nowhere. And at 56 it’s unlikely he’s improved in the last four years.
Cameron’s performance was very accomplished - I don’t understand how itt can be said to be poor - light on policy but thats no suprised given where we are in the lectioral cycle. I was impresed it was the first time I heard him @ the despatch box & he ate Kelly alive.
Alex you’re point about Cameron’s expereince vis-avis the LD alternatives to Kennedy is wrong I think. Cameron, has only been in Parliament since 2001 & is still in his 30’s - both Oaten (early 40s) and Davey (40 this year)have been in since 97 and Hughes since 1983 (in his 50’s.
42: oops - forgot to add “election”!
37 Valerie - could you drop me a line at tabman@thatsaid.co.uk please?
46 - sorry Bullseye. I got confused.
Chris g at 30. I was being charitable in my last post. Having just read your post I can only think we were watching a different performance. Osborne was pathetic.
Leader: David Davis
Deputy Leader & Shadow Foreign Secretary: William Hague
Shadow Chancellor: George Osbourne
Shadow Constitutional Affairs: Oliver Letwin
Opposition Chief Whip: David MacLean
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons: Eric Forth
Shadow Culture: Boris Johnson
Shadow Defence: Michael Ancram
Shadow International Development: John Bercow
Shadow Education: Andrew Lansley
Shadow Environment: Julie Kirkbride
Shadow Health: Dr Liam Fox
Shadow Home: David Cameron
Shadow Industry: John Redwood
Shadow Community: Caroline Spelman
Shadow “Regions” (I like that one): Malcolm Rifkind
Shadow Transport: Damian Green
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Andrew Mitchell
Shadow Work: David Willetts
i Osborne was pathetic.
Coming from Roger, this must mean he has done quite well…
Hi Sophia. Always the pessimist! Did you think Osborne was up to scratch in his first attempt against Brown? Did he set you alight? Butter the bagels? Get the pulse racing?…..Well not for me. Sounded like a nervous sixth form debater. He might improve but it’d be easier to cut his teeth elsewhere I think
He looked nervous but very good looking. He’ll do fine.
I’m not sure how Osborne might do. He’ll have to grow into a good Commons performer, and that could let Brown off before Christmas. A tough, wily and experienced performer, like Rifkind if he does well, could have been better at exposing the Chancellor.
Don’t you worry that Julie Kirkbride might do as much damage at environment as she did to young kids with her MMR scares? She should do what Edwina did and quietly try to rehabilitate herself.
Yeah. MMR was all Julie Kirkbride’s fault.
Don’t you mean, what Edwina didn’t?
58 - au contraire. Who these days thinks of salmonella when Edwina’s name is mentioned?
27: We know Davies is very illiberal
What on earth are you talking about? He is strongly opposed to ID cards, he was against Labours anti-terror house arrest etc laws and he preaches about individual liberty. Sounds rather liberal to me. Or are you using the word “liberal” in the way Americans tend to use it nowadays, ie: left-wing.
Osbourne dealt with difficult interventions v.well…unlike brown who obviously hates the rather left wing brummie woman mp (not clare short) who kept trying to intervene on him. Osbourne, Cameron, Kirkbride, Spellman….vs cook, brown, beckett and prescott….mmm the telegenic vote goes tory!
Didn’t see it but I guess the MP you mean is Lynne Jones?
as for letwin fading into obscurity….that’s exactly where he belongs nice chap but…dear me!
She touted Dr Wakefields completely false scare to whichever media outlet would give her the time of day. Being a prominent politician she managed to scare the living daylights out of parents particularly in London. I remember the admirable Dr Evan Harris saying to her that her peddling of this unsubstantiated story was going to cost lives. But nonetheless she carried on regardless. Sometimes it might be a good idea to hold politicians to account . Even Conservative ones.
62. thats the 1…..old labour mp showing brown up as what he is….an architect of NEW labour….but who for his own political convenience now stresses his traditional labour values
29 - Sorry Alex - I’m at work so not really time to respond fully . I don’t think I did rule Cameron or certainly did not mean to give that impression . If I was a Conservative , which thank the lord I’m not sir , he is the one I would actually go for .
64 - Many things were to ‘blame’ for what happened with MMR but I wouldn’t leave the Government’s inept handling of the crisis, or even the Lancet itself, off the list.
It didn’t take long for George Osborne’s background to be brought up by Brown:
“Now surrounded by so many diverse and divided prescriptions for the economy, there are cracks already so wide and extensive that, if I may be excused for saying so, even the heir to a distinguished wallpaper empire cannot paper over these cracks.”
59.”58 - au contraire. Who these days thinks of salmonella when Edwina’s name is mentioned?”
maybe the first thought for the majority of voters when Edwina is mentioned is “who is that Edwina?”
Then the ones who still remember her would probably think about John Major, salmonella and the age of consent.
When I first heard about the Currie/Major revelations on the radio news, I thought it was some kind of Chris Morris spoof, like the fake news report in “Brass Eye” of Noel Edmonds going on a murderous rampage.
68 and there are holes in Labour spending plans so that even the son of the manse will have to pray a little.
BTW it was George Osborne’s birthday two days ago so he’s now 34 (random fact noticed in newspaper birthday column)
70. book value, there are worse shock than discovering the Major/Currie thing.
and off topic: last week we were talking about maiden speeches and the tradition to praise the precedessor, yesteday the new MP for Hackney South & Shoreditch didn’t praise Brian Sedgemore. Now we should only wait for the new Peterborough to see what he’ll say about Helen Clark (The Independent proposed her for the celebrity Big Brother a couple of days ago).
The new leadership election proposal puts a lot of power in the hands of 650 constituency chairmen and 250-350 other “senior fogures” in the party. The MPs will find it hard to ignore their vote.
Does anyone know who the senior figures are, and whether they are appointed or elected ?
We also hear that some constituency parties are moribund with less than 100 members. Could this leave the process open to manipulation ? Will we see bands of Fox-ites and Davis-tas moving in to Liverpool and Glasgow and seizing control of the constituency associations ?
Lorcan,the proposed constitutional changes will increase the number of people entitled to vote on the leadership by including Deputy Chairmen (usually 2 per constituency), Council Group Leaders, Scottish and Welsh Assembly Members, Peers and MEPs, in addition to Chairmen and area officers.
But your point is a good one. Why should an association with 100 members be given effectively the same voting rights as one with 1000, (or a council group of 2 the same as a council group of 30) and why should such voting rights be concentrated on a few individuals in any case?
Given that the logic of involvement by the voluntary party in leadership selection has been accepted, the only fair way of allowing such participation is one member one vote.
73 - the “senior figures” are mainly the Regional & Area Officers. They are elected by the Constituency Officers.
74. Sean, thanks for clarifying that. It does seem to be a lopsided form of indirect democracy, and no more likely to produce the ‘right’ result than one member one vote.
I concur with the broad consensus that seems to have formed on this thread that David Davis and David Cameron are really the only two viable candidates to replace Michael Howard. The others all have various problems that seem to outweigh the benefits of their candidacy. I won’t go into these because I feel they have been covered off extensively in various posts preceeding this one.
As I said before the election, I am leaning toward David Cameron. He’s telegenic, youthful, and comes across as quite ordinary considering his background. I think there is plenty of potential there for a connection between him and the electorate at large. I also don’t buy into this idea of ‘inverted snobbery’. I don’t think most people care where a chap has gone to university thesedays; they’re more concerned about where he is now and what his views and ideas for the future are. Labour have always been the party of class warfare and I for one would be very distressed to see the Conservative Party pick up this unhappy mantle.
My view of the state of the contest is that Davis is streets ahead of the rest, including Cameron. Cameron and others who think they are comers need time to organise and make an impression. Whether the autumn gives them sufficient time is anyone’s guess. If Cameron is able to keep shining against Kelly he will probably be able to challenge strongly. I think a civilised contest is very important. I’m eager that things not become personal and bitter, but nor do I want a coronation. Competition is healthy and will make the eventual leader the stronger for it, not to mention setting us up with a prospective successor down the road if the second candidate has a respectable showing.
Bottom line: Leaning toward David Cameron, but feeling very comfortable with the prospect of David Davis too. Either one will have my unreserved loyalty.
74 - Sean I may be wrong and I might have posted this on another thread but my understanding is that 200 of the weakest constituency parties (largely in inner-cities) are to be merged into larger units. Probably quite a good idea.
I won’t offer a comment on Osbourne’s performance itself since I’m obviously biased, but it was very noticeable in the Chamber that he had almost no support from his own benches, who eyed him beadily like five rows of lizards, all the more when he made a joke like the pefectly good one about Notting Hill. I didn’t get the impression that the modernisers were numerous
Davis must be the default candidate. I can’t say he fills us with dread, but there’s nothing in particular that I know of that rules him out. I think they’d be better off with a more obvious clean break with the past, but they’re not yet in the mood for that.
Incidentally, to respond to the other thread about artificial election tactics, I had an entertaining experience myself one morning. I’d gotten up early and was typing away as usual when my wife came into the study. “It’s come to this!” she said mournfully. In her hands was a letter generated for Labour-leaning voters by our campaign computer system:
Dear Fiona Palmer,
Like you I live in the constituency…”
“…at least at the weekend.”
70. “there are worse shock than discovering the Major/Currie thing”. I can’t think of many that doesn’t involve Nicolas Soames…….
Why should an association with 100 members be given effectively the same voting rights as one with 1000, (or a council group of 2 the same as a council group of 30)
Ignoring the issue of manipulation of the voting process as mentioned, it is the same logic which provides the Government of this country. Our democracy is not based on one member one vote, so it is not particularly logical that in-party democracy should be either.
RE: 79, That made me laugh… The computer obviously thought you did not talk to your wife enough.
79 - Sounds like Labour don’t want Davis to win
Tsk you can tell they have got no class in Broxtowe, its Osborne not Osbourne as in Jack Osbourne. Of course, George and Jack are both heirs to their father’s fortune.
Mr Osborne has a reasonably good review in the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1627342,00.html
81.”I can’t think of many that doesn’t involve Nicolas Soames……. ”
Roger, I tell you only that a Soames former girfriend said that having sex with him was like having “a wardrobe falling on top of you with the key still in the lock”…..
Yes quite a chatitable review in the Times online. Obviously don’t believe in kicking a man when he’s down
Does anyone know of a video feed of the Brown/Osborne match online anywhere?
That’s brilliant Andrea! Had me laughing out loud.I don’t suppose it’s a liason she boasts about unless she was drunk as a Lord
Max @78, yes it is intended that associations be merged, and that, ultimately, there will be 2-300 local parties. But that won’t happen in time for the next leadership election, and doesn’t alter the fact that the new local parties would still be of varying sizes (not to mention Council Groups).
Alex @82, I don’t think that’s a good analogy, as there is no real equivalent of Parliamentary constituencies within an organisation.
Like several people here, I favour the adoption of an electoral college, similar to Labour’s, and wouldn’t be surprised if that was the final outcome.
Re. 60, no, Labour’s appeal to the telegenic vote is saved by Yvette Cooper (as I’ve said before many a time, it’s a disgrace she’s not in the Cabinet by now), Caroline Flint, and Katherine Atkinson (even if she is an ex-PPC rather than MP).
Re. another post saying that Labour has always been the party of class warfare. Well, some of my comrades certainly like that sort of thing (Fiona Millar for one, whose ‘ban all school except comprehensive ones’ effusions never cease to make my blood boil with rage at her ill-informed ‘all must have prizes, let’s pretend everyone has the same ability, level down’ spite), but there’s also a fair appetite for class warfare among some Tories (like Digby Anderson, whose ‘All Oiks Now’ made my blood boil with rage in the other direction at his cantankerous, misanthropic love of class stratification for the sake of it). And, of course, there was the Simon Heffer-penned editorial attacking Liverpool (which included allegations against Liverpool fans at Hillsborough which were disproved by the Taylor Report) which got Bozza into such trouble. I also remember the two Tory young turks at university who thought it terribly big to mock a fellow student for her Nottinghamshire accent and who charmingly opined that the working-classes were ‘a bunch of tossers’. They weren’t kidding - they were deadly serious.
It is amusing how the two different papers the Times and the Telegraph are building up their stable. The Times has lashed praise onto Osbourne and Cameron with very generous interviews (I loved the bit about Osbourne’s vague left wing connections, they really had to drag that one up) and is in general in support of the modernisers. Whereas the Telegraph is very much behind the traditionalists, giving pleny of space to Davis, IDS and Bernard Jenkin to espouse their views. Indeed the leader columns are fairly thinly covered attacks on the modernisers, like the one today about the values statement.
Personally like AHM I would be perfectly happy with Davis or Cameron both of whom would be fine in the job and bring different aspects and advantages to it. To take one example, while Davis has a much more interesting life story, Cameron has a stronger persona on television.
86, 89 Andrea, Roger. Yes, I too smiled when I first heard that one.
The only problem is, that it a) seems to be apocryphal and b) I have subsequently heard it said of others (of us) who scale more than 100 kg….
not me, of course
I meant, of course, in my account of Fiona Millar’s abysmal attitude towards educational diversity, that her attitude is ‘let’s ban all schools except comprehensive ones’ (though the educational left’s hatred of phonics has probably left a whole load of kids unable to distinguish between schools and school, so it was probably a Freudian slip!)
Messrs Cameron and Davis seem fairly free from the ‘Tory class warfare’ attitudes I described, which is why either man would make a good leader. I should add that, apart from the vitriolic ‘yah boo sucks’ posturing of Sarah J (which wasn’t snobbery so much as a general ‘born to rule’ arrogance) no Tory on this blog has ever come close to the sort of snobbery shown by the Tory young turks at university I mentioned. I well remember, for example, Sean disowning the snobbish snarlings of Digby Anderson.
While you’re here, Robert, I wonder if you’d be so kind as to remind me of who I get in touch with re. the second Politicos counter-factual collection?
90 - true, but the principle of not effectively restricting the franchise to the Tories’ safest seats (which usually have the most members) must be a good one. What it takes to be successful in a contest for the Tory leadership should not be noticeably different to what it takes to be successful when standing for the leadership of the country in a General election.
The Tory’s attracting the snob vote disappeared a long time ago. The worst you can now say about the ‘Blue Rosettes’ now is that they represent the ‘get-rich-quicks’. I was trying to think the other day at what point in someones developement do the family realize they have a ‘Tory’ on their hands? And the answer is probably aged about eight or nine…..Do you remember the school boy or girl (usually boy) who would go home for lunch when the rest ate at the school….and how he would return with bags of sweets that he would sell to those who couldn’t get out for an exhorbitant profit……?
95, Richard, sorry for the delay - I’m not really ‘here’, just popping in and out in the interstices of writing the next Almanac (2,500 words down now, 397,500 to come ..)
Your man is Duncan Brack
dbrack@dircon.co.uk
Best wishes and good luck!
Good day for David Davis. Wins the battle to oppose ID cards and the headlines are:
1) they’re going to cost more than previously planned and
2) the technology doesn’t work
97 - you really do have a very stereotypical and warped view of the world don’t you Roger?
97. Interesting that Roger. When I was about 10 or 11 at primary school, I used to bring about 4 or 5 orange cartons to school bought for about 25/30p and sell each one for over £1 on the bus back home. Being without a vending machine did me a lot of good at school. Look at me now, vice chairman of the local conservative future organisation.
OK - i take it back
77 “Bottom line: Leaning toward David Cameron, but feeling very comfortable with the prospect of David Davis too. Either one will have my unreserved loyalty.”
Alastair - if you’re happy with them, I’m more than happy with them
90 - Political parties are rather like businesses . As they lose support/members-orders/staff constituency parties merge- departments get smaller ultimately you end with just a national party - a one man business or no party or business at all .
103 - Excellent news, Tabman. Now if only we could persuade you to be as sensible about the rest of your politics and where you take your lead from. Alas, I suspect that may be asking too much.
Hi all , returning to the fray after a six week absence due to a serious family illness and subsequent bereavement. I regret not being upto posting the “Jack Quartet” through to polling day , hope you all understand. I’ll post a summary if anybody’s interested plus a few other titbits that came my way during the election . In any case I’m glad to be back in circulation again .
No one think the Cameron Bandwagon is starting to pick up. Very favourable reviews V Kelly etc. THe longer this goes on the more he will become the only alternative to David Davis, once he reaches that critical mass he will make it very hard for David Davis, who frankly didn’t impress in his party hairman’s role. Anyone remember how John Majoy bevcame unstoppable once all the various anti Hezza factions realised he was the only alternative to Heseltine?
Think all this is shown by David Davis acxolytes pushing for an ealier contest the longer it goes on, the more chance for David Cameron to pick up momentum. Frash start no link to the last Conservative Govt. I think David Davis rather meanly priced actually if the timetable stays the same if no new leader until after the party conference when presumably David Cameron will have a big opportunity to undercut David Davis’s support in the grassroots having a big set pice opportnity to woew them directly himself. Interesting times.
Why has no one come out with a new list of marginals?
99, 103 - one thing I’ll say in Davis’ favour is that he does at least agree with Liberal Democrat policy on ID cards, unlike the current Tory leader
Off topic but on all topics . Is it not possible to have an edit facility so we can correct the siily spelling errors most of us seem to make when posting probably I know caused by tapping the keyboard faster than our brains are thinking ?
108 you can create your own with a bit of filtering on the UK Election Database list linked top right.
109 - Tabman - I’m sure Davis & Cameron both have a card in their top pocket which states “Do the opposite of what Tabman says”.
Mark 110. This was something Robert was working on before the eelction - then all the effort went into keeping the site live. I’ll find out where he has got to.
110 - I’m Labour I don’t make misstakes!
Jack W, Glad to have you back and many sympathies for your loss.
Having appreciated your to-ings and fro-ings in the early stages of the campaign I’d be really interested in how things were decided on the day, and the eventual accuracy of your sources’ predictions(which I’ve forgotten!) in a number of specific seats.
106 - Indeed, Jack. My sympathies on your loss as well. I was assuming that you had plumbed down to Cowley Street for the duration of the election campaign, but then again I’m an awful cynic.
112 - ah, but how do they know whether I’m bluffing or double-bluffing? When I say “tack to the right”, is it because I think that’s the wrong direction for them to go, or because I think it’s the right direction and I know they’ll do the opposite, or is it the wrong direction but they’ll think I’m bluffing and therfore do it?
Oh what it is to have such influence with the Tory leadership …
It’s a little known fact that Charles Kennedy carries a card in his hip flask pocket saying “Do the opposite of what Vino says”.
113 - Thanjs Mike
Re. 118, if Kennedy preferred wine to spirits, the card would say ‘In vino veritas’.
O/t looks like the Scallies are going to get into extra time …
Quite a game by the sounds of it - nearly as exciting as politics.
115, 116 . Thank you for your kind words. In the early days of the campaign I had 3 or more sources in 4 seats - Kettering , Cambridge , St. Albans and Bournemouth East - “The Jack Quartet”. My first post on Kettering was a prediction of a Tory gain with a maj of around 3000 - spot on as it turned out. Cambridge also turned out correct as the Lab maj melted away as the election progressed . The tipping point was CK’s rally where several hundred members of the public were turned away . So confident were the Lib Dems in the final days that another CK visit was cancelled.
St Albans turned out to be trickier than anticipated because of the strong showing of the Lib Dems - an interesting 3 way marginal next time. My sources thought a tory maj of 3000 which was a little strong in the end. Bournemouth East was called correctly as a Con hold , but my sources indicated a slight swing away from the tories , which was wrong . The swing was about 2% to the tories , although in next door Bournemouth West there was a 3% swing to the Lib Dems. So not bad really.
The other info that came to me from less than 3 sources also proved pretty accurate , indeed I wish I’d taken more notice for betting purposes. I was told of Lib Dem hopes in Solihull , but I put that down to over optimism from next door Birmingham Yardley. Also the west country was a complete mess with swings all over the shop.
In the end I only placed bets on 2 seats - Norfolk North and Bristol West with the Lib Dems to win both . So a little (a lot really) financial gain amongst personal travails. I couldn’t believe the bookies thought Norman Lamb would lose , even early in the campaign sources were clear that Lamb was a shoe in with a 4000+ maj and by polling day talk was of 6-8000 + , so 10000 was pretty good.
Bristol West was also pretty clear by mid campaign .
Personally I voted for the winning party - None of the above !!!
117 - Nothing wrong with a bit of bluffing in politics. The key is to know when it’s going on. The trouble with the Lib Dems is they seem to believe their own bluffing and that’s why you haven’t got 80 seats and that’s why you didn’t decapitate half the Tory front bench.
125 - our trouble is we’re too nice and din’t want to deprive you Tories of your seats - you take it so personally when you lose
124 Jack, welcome back.
Incidentally, Kinkell disappeared at about the same time as you did
121 - I did indeed bet on Kilroy! odds were too good to miss,one of my failures I’m afraid to say along with turnout and number of seats Lib Dems would obtain.I didn’t do too bad in the competitions,always knew Lib Dems would struggle against the Tories(score draw indeed!),I think you got to make your mind up who the enemy is,going to the left leaves you vunerable to the conservatives,for what it’s worth I think that voters like myself who are whole heartedly new labour i.e support ID cards,agree with tutition fees,pro-war etc will be the battleground if Blair resigns and Brown becomes P.M.
127 . Tabman . Thank you . I think Kinkell must have disappeared up his own estate ! How was Harborough through the election ?
126 - You people have got lots of problems, but being too nice isn’t one of them.
128 - ah well. I must say before Kilroy lost his marbles and split with UKIP, I considered backing him at 20/1. Fortunately I didn’t.
130 - “You people”? That’s not very cuddly “Reform Conservative” Alastair. That smacks of the Nasty Party.
Repeat after me: “If we don’t remember to be nice to people occasionally we won’t win the next election … ” 
128. “for what it’s worth I think that voters like myself who are whole heartedly new labour i.e support ID cards,agree with tutition fees,pro-war etc will be the battleground if Blair resigns and Brown becomes P.M. ”
I don’t think that Brown will move to the left or at least if he’ll do it only slightly. Brown is certainly not old labour.
Back to Davis, I just saw that Iain Dale has become his new chief of staff.
132 - Yes, you people!
I’m not a ‘Reform Conservative’, I’m an old fashioned, red blooded Tory and nobody is going to call me otherwise. Besides, you’re not going to vote for us anyhow, so why should I bother with the pretense? Fancy taking lectures on niceness from a member of the ‘Decaptitation’ Party, though!
A.H. Matlock - Tories have red blood now? What happened to blue?
135 - We’ve changed it. Part of our modernisation drive.
136- but if you’re an old fashioned conservative, you should try to resist
133 - Andrea - I think you are right,Brown is new Labour through and through so why do many posters on this site see him as old Labour?
137 - I did, mightily. But you have to compromise at times, you know. It was either this or promise to be nice to the Lib Dems.
138.”I think you are right,Brown is new Labour through and through so why do many posters on this site see him as old Labour? ”
If they’re tories, it’s probably an hope (because so it would be easy for them to win).
If they’re left winged labour voters, it’s because they’re giving themself some hopes that the party will move in their direction.
You could say that he’s probably less centrist than Blair, but not an old labour politician.
140 - I don’t think Brown has the same appeal to ‘Middle England’ that Blair does either. The left wing of the Labour Party may well be able to call Blair a host of unflattering names, but they’re surely going to miss him when he’s gone.
141,” I don’t think Brown has the same appeal to ‘Middle England’ that Blair does either. The left wing of the Labour Party may well be able to call Blair a host of unflattering names, but they’re surely going to miss him when he’s gone”
It will depend from where the tories will be in 2009\10. But it’s ridiculus to call Brown an hardleft politician.
I’m sure that Jeremy Corbyn won’t miss Blair. The hardleft MPs are almost all in safe seats (except Bob Andrews-Marshall) and they probably prefer to stay in opposition.
142 - Nothing would delight me more than assisting them in achieving their aim.
143-A.H. Matlock, don’t understimate the appeal of the hard left: Alice Mahon was highly regarded and respect throughout the country according to new MP of Halifax. I’m alreday hearing a lot of Mahon fans from Buckingham and Richmond.
But then in maiden speeches new MPs tend to say a lot of strange things. Daniel Kawczynski (MP for Shrewsbury & Atcham) informed the whole world that he’s the tallest MP ever and Emily Thornberry (Islington South)thanked Chris Smith’s boyfriend (because “he has been Chris’s rock for 20 years”; didn’t know it was a tradition to thank even family members of predecessors).
Another “stupid” thing, looking at MPs taking the Oath, I discover their full names. Gordon is Brown second name, the full name is James Gordon Brown. Nick Palmer is Nicholas Douglas.
Nick Herbert middle name is Le Quesne (very strange name). Tessa Joweel has a lot of names.
Andrea, I think it’s pronounced Le “Kane” (as in Citizen)(or possibly “Keane”, as in Roy)- but not “Queen”.
One of Boris Johnson’s middle names is Boris. Another is de Pfeffel.
Not Piffle.
Some people called him Alex at college.
145. Robert, I’m not following you….(probably it’s because of the late hour)
144 - The appeal of the hard left to whom, exactly? It’s hardly a political force to be reckoned with in this country.
142-I think Brown has little if any appeal to middle england,after further tax rises in the next two years his appeal will be non existent.
The good news is that when he does become PM he will have to clear his own mess up and won’t be able to blame the Tories.
148. Don’t worry. I was joking about the fact that Linda Riordan (new MP for Halifax) said that the whole country highly regards “Red” Alice Mahon.
140-Tax,spend and waste seems pretty like old Labour to me?
128-Hopefully with the support of the anti Blair Labour MP’s of which there are 30 to 40 plus unity amongst the oppoosition parties will kill off the ID cards once and for all.
Maybe via a private members bill with the same coalition the top up fees can also be dumped as happened yesterday in Wales.
Memories are long in terms of all the lies over Iraq et al with many old scores to settle.
134 - “I’m an old fashioned, red blooded Tory and nobody is going to call me otherwise.”
Exactly Alastair, which is what makes you such a great bellweather - if it appeals to you it will probably scare the Middle England horses
Re 110/113 the ‘current’ marginals will presumably change somewhat with the new boundaries??
I dunno about Brown having no appeal to middle England. I know someone who votes Tory (and as described above sold sweets to the other kids at school!) who hates Blair and prefers Brown.
Well, preferring him to someone he hates isn’t necessary amounting to appeal…
GQ - I should correct that, the emotive language was all mine. I think he thinks Blair should not be trusted with power.