Could Michael Howard be forced out within weeks?
May 26th, 2005
-
Is the Tory leader’s authority slipping away?
Michael Howard’s pleasure at seeing his lifelong love, Liverpool, pull off that sensational victory in the European Cup last night could be tempered by the problems in his party that are the main lead in early editions of the Daily Telegraph. This is suggesting that moves might be afoot to force him out “within weeks” and to have his successor in place by the end of July.
The report quotes an interview with a leading David Davis backer, Derek Conway, on ITV News, that many people in the party were unhappy at the prospect of Mr Howard’s staying on until December. In response to a question whether MPs were considering collecting forcing a vote of confidence Conway said: “We are counselling caution rather than action but groups of people are talking about it.”
According to the paper “worries that he was now a lame duck leader, having announced that he would go by the end of the year, were aggravated by his lacklustre performance against Tony Blair at the first Prime Minister’s question time of the new parliament.”
- As we saw with the fall of Mrs Thatcher and the downing of Ian Duncan Smith in 2003 the Conservatives are the most brutal of parties when it comes to ditching a leader.
In the Next Tory leader market an early departure for Michael Howard is most likely to benefit David Davis – although the Shadow Home Secretary has to be careful about not appearing to be the assassin. The prospective candidates most vulnerable in the current environment could be the young turks promoted after the General Election by Michael Howard.
What would be good now is a market on when Michael Howard will go.
PHONEY EMAIL ADDRESSES When you post you are asked for your email address which is not published. This allows me to contact posters directly if there are issues in relation to their comments. In future where I am unable to do this because the email address is not correct then comments might be deleted and the poster will automatically go on the moderation list and there might be a delay before they get published.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
The Tories seem a bit ungrateful to Howard or were many biting their lips over the Flight affair during the campaign? I have n’t seen a list of marginals yet but looking at the results there are quite a lot where the Lab majority is 2000 or less. This should concentrate their mind but I suppose it’s best if they get their (inevitable) squabbling over with as soon as possible. The media just highlights it all the time with little about the Government.
Fascinating. This is coming from Davis, Conway is one of his attack dogs, so everyone will know that this is coming from him. This can only mean that they don’t feel confident about the numbers in the Parliamentary party.
If Davis tries to force Howard out he is taking a very big risk. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes him so unpopular with Tory MPs.
If he succeeds in getting Howard out by the Summer so that the vote stays with the membership he might be safe, but an unsuccessful putsch will surely only hardened opposition to him among MPs & local party chairmen - winning an Anyone-But-Davis candidate support.
The Tories never seem to elect the favourite, and he who weilds the knife never seems to wear the crown. Davis is playing a dangerous game & it looks like he could still lose it.
Hope Tories get a move on - The sooner they get a new leader the sooner they can get rid of him (a la IDS) before the next election gets too close.
Dont you just love it!!! -
I blame Mrs Thatcher
Icarus you’ll be pleased to know that To-day is giving airtime to Lord Tebbit who as ever has plenty of “helpful” advice.
The phrase “Couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery” comes to mind.
In an era when politics is (almost) all about management, the Conservatives seem depermined to be the Chaos Party. It hardly seems to be a very wise positioning strategy.
I think Michael Howard has been very lucky that his leadership up to and including during the election campaign has avoided scrutiny. By all yardsticks his performance was abysmal yet the worst that is being said of him is that he’s making a mess of the new leadership rules. Perhaps moving the agenda on so quickly-from resignation to new rules to a speeding up of the rules to the rejection of the rules-is a smokescreen to stop the detailed analysis of his eighteen months incharge which otherwise would have taken place?
This from the Times today may give encouragement to those who want an early leadership election under the existing rules: Back through the door stalks Big Beast No 1
Off-topic: We had a learned exchange about German politics the other day, and things are moving quickly there. Lafontaine, the Tony Benn of German politics, has left the SPD and said that if the ex-Communist PDS and the left-wing ex-SPD splinter group WASG can get their act together, he’d be willing to lead them. This apparently somewhat egotistical offer can has gone down well, at least with the PDS (who get 15-20% in the old GDR but only 1-2% in the West, and whose prospects would be transformed with a good Western leader), but there are serious technical problems in forming a joint list before an autumn election. It’s quite possible that the outcome of this will decide whether the right-wing parties can get an overall majority.
This is a fairly natural development in any country with PR - you’d normally expect a far-left party with 10% or so. The PDS retains a significant following in the east, not just among the nostalgic elderly: it’s seen by many as the regional champion against western exploitation. However, a successful left-wing alliance would be risky for the Greens, who have the majority of the left-wing West German vote at the moment. Under the German system, if you drop under 5% you’re normally wiped out.
3 - I agree a quick contest now would allow ample time for at least 1 more replacement before the next general election and the odds are that they will again pick the wrong man for the wrong job at the wrong time .
Lorcan 7. Your Times extract is making the point I argued a couple of days ago about a NO in the French referendum. My guess is that the whole EU issue, which has been such a sore in the Tory party since 1992, will look less important on Monday morning.
I am not sure David Conway intervention is particularly helpful to David Davis, in fact, probably the opposite.
Sofia. If you want to keep your high regard for the handsome George Osborne I would avoid reading to-days sketch writers.
This by Gordon Brown from the Telegraph article above made me grin…
“I do not underestimate the problems that the Conservative Party face. They have been trying to find a new leader, the fifth in opposition; a new system for finding a new leader, the third in opposition; [and they have] a new shadow chancellor, the seventh in opposition.”
12 - there’s a rather scathing sketch piece on “Helium” Osborne in the Indy too.
Its Sophia Roger, and the reviews of Osborne’s performance in the Telegraph, the Times, the Daily Mail and the Guardian (yes, I have read all this morning - I thought of you!) have all been pretty positive. The Mirror hasn’t been, but there you go!
Here is the final paragraph of the Telegraph sketch writer, seeing that you mentioned that publication:
Osborne survived yesterday’s encounter, and even gave some indications that he understands Brown’s weakness, which is to reject all reforms that would give the British people greater freedom.
Perhaps MH putting Osborne up against Gordon Brown was a “grammar school boy’s” way of getting back at the “public school boy”?
12- Roger, yesterday Brown seemed more irritated by Lynn Jones trying to speak than by Osborne.
I see Mr Palmer was one of the toadies who got brushed off very well by Mr O.
Sofia at 15. I preferred this from the same article and it better reflected the debate I watched “Osborne climbed out of our trench and stood at the Dispatch Box. Not since David took on Goliath has there been such a mismatch. The onlookers, I’m sorry to say, were treating the whole affair as a kind of blood sport”.
19 - Yes they were from the start Roger, they though GO would be mauled. As has been reported in most of the reports, he survived.
BTW, he is actually taking elocution lessons!
Andrea at 17. I’m not surprised! It is difficult to exaggerate how futile Mr Osborne appeared. As Sofia’s quote said he didn’t do anything wrong but this just amplified the problem….. Osborne looked like he was from a Sunday League team playing Man U.
Nick Palmer [8] - just to say I really enjoyed your post-poll “gossip column” on your own site… set me thinking that Nottinghamshire has some good MPs - and since I’m bored already with watching the Tories yet again snatch disaster from the jaws of defeat (has failing to make the magic 200 got to them?) I was idly - anything to take my mind off going to the dentist later this morning - wondering: which county has the ablest MPs… and of course the opposite…
(I know Tabman will say Cornwall but we’ll take that as read, shall we :))
Elocution lessons! Is it possible to be taught to speak with two plums in your mouth?
22. Fife ?
20 - presumably from the same voice coach as Thatch, who lowered hers an octave or so.
22 - perish the thought!
Quite a lot of Brown worship on this thread this morning. Shame the great man will be remembered as the most thwarted and humiliated politician in history when Tone stitches him up for one last time and paases the leadership on to Hilary Benn.
It is sad to see that this forum is degenerating to the juvenile level of debate that sometime characterised it before the election!
I thought GO performed adequately against Brown - no mean feat - and I am sure that after a couple more warm up’s he will be doing even better. Brown is a formidable operator who has outlasted so called “class acts” like Portillo and Maude. It would not be surprising if GO was a little over awed on his first outing. I am sure that will pass!
As to earlier posters talking about the Tories having no credible leadership contenders while the Lib Dems have loads, I nearly fell off my chair laughing! The only credible politician the Lib Dems have is Menzies Campbell - he could feature in any Tory or Labour cabinet and hold his own and not look out of place. Only Vince Cable would come close after that). Most of the rest of them are lightweights and no-bodies who could not hold their own against GO or many new Tory MPs. GO has been criticised by the “usual suspects” on here, but in reality he is far better than most of the Lib Dem spokesmen.
27.”GO has been criticised by the “usual suspects” on here, but in reality he is far better than most of the Lib Dem spokesmen. ”
someone could argue that GO has been praised by the “usual suspects” on here too.
Hermes. Is it possible to be the “most humiliated politician in history” while Aitken and Archer are still with us?
(Good to see you raising the level of debate Rik!)
18. Nick loyally intervened but with a totally irrelevant aside that Osborne was able to brush off.
Cynic humbly suggests Nick that in future you ascertain the substance of the debate (it’s on the order paper) before blindly obeying the whips.
Or was this Palmers paradox 2 at work? Demonstrate how easily the shadow chancellor can brush aside Labour MP’s thus building up his stature and subconsciously sending out a message to Broxtowe’s hoards of wavering voters that those nasty Tories really are a threat!!!
27 - Richard, Richard, Richard … did you get out of bed the wrong side or something?
“[T]he rest of them are lightweights and no-bodies who could not hold their own against GO or many new Tory MPs”
David Laws was a managing director of Barclay’s Bank before he was 30. He has a double first from Cambridge University. Hardly the CV of a lightweight nobody is it?
27 - one could also ask whether you include Paul Burstow in your list of “lightweights and nobodies”, in which case one can draw the obvious conclusion.
One thought that occurred to me re Europe, is that the Conservatives did the country in general, and Labour in particular, a huge service by wrangling over Europe in the 1990s. The wrangles ensured that we stayed out of the ERM, thereby boosting this country’s prosperity significantly, for which Labour has been able to claim the credit.
Isnt Lib Dem Leadership an oxymoron!
Does anyone agree with me (I know you won’t Roger), that this could be the parliament when Gordon Browns popularity will unravel big time. There are more and more problems arising from his economic policies which will show themselves in the next few years. Many first time buyers who have only really known a labour government will be further priced out of the housing market by his cheap gimmicks of devoloping a few government owned sites and buying into a few properties with first time buyers. We all know that pensions is moving up the agenda and if the conservatives can show up his disincouragement to save schemes such as abolishing tessas and peps to fuel the consumer spending, as well as his destruction of many a pension funds, then his reputation could start to look a little tarnished. Add this to the fact that as PM, he would not be able to shy away from decisions such as tuition fees and the Iraq war, his popularity may be on a par with Blairs come 2009/10.
31. & 32. In what way are you suggesting that those qualifications make him a “credible candidate”? He is anot applying for an executive job, he is being touted as the leader of a political party. While some element of man-management is required, so also is statesman-like gravitas on issues, the ability to apply a coherent mindset (not to be confused with ideology) to all the problems that crop up in life and to re-assure and lead. Menzies alone in the LD party has this (certainly not CK, though I agree Cable has some of it). None of the others have demonstrated anything like it. Admittedly the threshold for becoming leader of a minor party is lower than that of the main parties, but if you have serious ambitions you have to aim high. As has been said, almost all Tory leadership contenders would, individually, be favourites in a Lib Dem leadership contest; conversly almost no Lib Dem leadership candidates would be on the radar or the Tory or Labour leadership contests. That is the basis of the current Lib Dem dilemma and there is no end in sight.
[34] Well the Conservatives have certainly had a lot of different leaders over the past few years- the Lib Dems have had two leaders since 1988 while the Conservatives have had five over the same time, and are trying for a sixth. If that is a good thing of course…
There is no way Howard could be forced out before the Summer, a September pre-Conference challenge is a possibility, but at the end of the day saviour-of-the-party Howard will get his way.
Anyone think this is hot air? Onwe of David Davis’s people was reported several weeks ago as saying he recognised that the man who wields the knife does not inherit the crown. He was probably thinking of Hesletine.
This is is probably psycological warfare to get Howard to speed the process up, to avoid the stengthening of rivals like David Cameron. If David Davis’s men like Drek Conway actually went as far as messy coup to force Howard out there would be a real risk of David David copping the blame sympathy for Oward anmd the uniting of other factions behind a stop David Davis candidate as happened to Hezza. It would be an extremely and i reckon unneccesarily risky move from David Davis, for similar reasons Gordon Brown has refrained many times from pulling the trigger on Blair.
It does seem all DD supporters are mainly the ones making all the problems. Am I the only one who thinks this is not a good move on behalf of their great leader in waiting.
“As has been said, almost all Tory leadership contenders would, individually, be favourites in a Lib Dem leadership contest; conversly almost no Lib Dem leadership candidates would be on the radar or the Tory or Labour leadership contests. That is the basis of the current Lib Dem dilemma and there is no end in sight. ”
Yes, frequently Lib Dems gather to bemoan the talents we envy in other parties. Charles Clarke. Liam Fox. John Reid. Andrew Lansley. Every one of them a profoundly attractive and charismatic figure far beyond our meagre aspirations.
36 - you do not reach a position of significant power in a large multinational bank if you don’t have leadership qualities.
37. IIRC the Tories have had 2 Prime Ministers in that time. Remind me how many the Lib Dems have had again???
41 Are you seriously arguing that corporate CEO skills are synonymous with that os statesmen? On this point we are simply not going to agree - I have personally known many, many top level management, of companies like SocGen, BNP Paribas, Rothschild, HSBC, StanChart and others and I can tell you none of them are potential politicians whatsoever, because they are in no way statesmen - they are managers.
And yes, all the people mentioned are better than yours, even though you have picked up particularly on the more marginal figures. So that if we were to talk about Davis, Hague, Rifkind, Clarke etc, or Brown and, er, well Labour are pretty awful too, you would presumably have no comment?
It’s interesting that very few people successfully transfer from top-flight business careers to politics.
It strikes me that many of the Conservative posters on here are so red/blue blooded that they would vote Conservative no matter how inept/incompetent their parties leaders and/or policies or corrupt/full of sleaze their actions in power . Let us not forget that even in 1997 30% of the electorate voted for such a party . The interesting thing is whether such people can have the foresight to elect a party leader who would appeal to non committed voters . On recent performance , the answer has to be No .
Smithson comment ‘Phoney email posters’,try contacting New Labour party HQ!
44 - it sounds as if you might be a certain Times columnist … am I warm?
Well - lets try and unpack this notion of “statesmanship”, whatever that might be. One definition might be ” a man whi is a respected leader in a given field.” Gravitas might be defined as “substance; weightiness” and “a serious or dignified demeanor.” Neither of these seem exclusively to reside in the political field.
Being a leader is all about having:
- a vision linked to a coherent philosopny
- the ability to inspire people with that vision
- the ability to draw people in to work towards that vision
- the ability to “kick @rse” when necesary
- the ability to make decisions
- the ability to seek and use good advice
All of these skills are just as pertinent in “management” as you choose to disparage it as they are in politics.
Yes, being a leader does require these. Unfortunately there are very few business leaders which have those abilities, as most are professional managers. The original posting was trying somehow to use someone’s business career CV as a justification for their seriousness as a politician. I hope we can agree that that assertion is entirely fallacious.
46. Didn’t nearly 28% vote for Micheal Foot in 1983. To link tribel loyality to just the conservatives is a tad incorrect
Re. 41, much as I thoroughly dislike the parochial, sanctimonious and generally useless LDs who misgovern on my local council, some of the LD MPs (Clegg and Huhne) would be considered big hitters in the two main political parties.
Since the fragrant Julia Goldsworthy’s election for Falmouth and Camborne, the LDs can also easily match the two main parties in the pulchitrude stakes.
48 - no we can not agree that. Successful business leaders have to have those qualities or they will simply not get to the top. Unless you can inspire and influence people outside of your direct line of control you will not win the support necessary to be elevated to top positions.
Furthermore, such skills given the right philosophical backing to ground them most definitely are transferable. I might perhaps enquire as to your own background - you state you have known such people but have you actually worked in similar companies?
You’d think so, Tabman, but I revert to my comment at 45. Top-flight businessmen like John Davies, Archie Norman, and Lord Simon haven’t succeeded in politics.
My guess would be that businessmen bring an overly rational approach to politics, have a good deal more respect for the truth than most politicians, and don’t suffer fools gladly, all of which tell against them in political life.
Richard Willis @ 27 - The change in tone on this comes almost exclusively when you post your usual poisonous bilge, why are you so incapable of posting comments aboput other parties without personalising everything? We all expect and indulge in a bit of party banter on here, that’s politics - but your comments always have such a nasty edge.
As my old teacher used to say, if you got nothing useful to say don’t bother saying anything at all!
44 - I’d dispute “more marginal figures”. All of the names I mentioned have been discussed with reasonable seriousness as leadership contenders, and I’d take Cable, Laws or Davey over any of them any day.
The real problem we have is the much higher hurdle that the leader of a third party has to overcome the effect of third place in getting the party taken seriously, and no Lib Dem should deny this is a serious concern. But to say we’re in third place because we have no one with “statesmanlike gravitas” is to invert cause and effect. Otherwise Ashdown would have hammered Kinnock and beaten Major in 1992.
52 - good points as ever, Sean - perhaps were politicians to behave more like businessmen they might have more respect
As far as the not suffering fools gladly goes, I can’t quite see Sir Alan Sugar (much as I liked him on The Apprentice) as a junior minister handling an adjournment debate initiated by Sir Bufton Tufton over the closure of a local post office. Then again, he might make a good Chief Whip:
‘There’s only room for one big mouth in this government - me!’
‘Never underestimate me - I don’t like crooks, I don’t like liars, and I don’t like bullsh*tters’
‘You keep saying you’re not my man for this vote, you’re not my man for that vote - what are you my man for?
And, of course: ‘Howard Flight - you’re fired!’
Except Michael Howard beat him to it….
53 Couldn’t put it better myself.
If there’s one thing worse than someone who never stops gloating, it’s being a very bad loser and that unfortunately is what Rik is.
52 As ever Sean, your comments are thoughtful and serious and rarely over party political. They add things to this site - something that unfortunately your S&C colleague’s have the opposite effect.
Yes we are a smaller party & we have a smaller pool of talent but there has been a real change in the quality of LibDem MP elected since 1997 - we are no-longer routinely selecting “super councillors” but instead electing eager young high-flyers who are not content to spend the next 20 or 30 years watching other people make decisions.
I’d quite happily compare a crop of senior LibDems against there Tory counterparts. Davis vs Oaten; Campbell vs Fox; Cable vs Osborne and as has been mentioned look at some of the newbies - Huhne & Clegg. Frankly I think the party is starting to punch above its weight.
My heart always sinks when I’m told that such and such should be leader because “he doesn’t suffer fools gladly”. Fools (whether they are MPs, councillors, party members, or constituents) all have votes, and you have to be nice to them.
PS Even though I’m a die-hard Chelsea fan embittered by the semi-final fix, I thought last night’s match was absolutely brilliant. Well done Liverpool
PS Sorry I missed you in NM yesterday Tabman.
Anyone think that it’s a two horse between Davis and Cameron?
63 - Yes. Its looks hugely like it will be DD, but if Derek Conway and chums carry on as they have been doing, then Dave Cameron will snatch it.
I think we have an interesting new thread here about why most business people either ignore politics or don’t like what they see when they get involved! Could it be
a) the lack of money
b) the mindless nature of dealing with opposition parties who are more intrested in spoiling than constructive criticism.
c) the complete inability to actually acheive anything is what one would consider a reasonable time frame
d) rubbing shoulders with the likes of the more vitriolic individuals who post on here?
63 - I’ll happily provde them with a bar-chart
As a Man U fan, and despite the traditional East Lancs Road rivalry, I agree with 62.
62, 67 - well they are scallies, you’d expect them to steal it
I must admit that Derek Conway does make me nervous about supporting David Davis for the leadership.
Successful lawyers flourish in politics, notwithstanding that it can result in a big reduction in income. Unlike businessmen, lawyers are happy, and used to, spinning a yarn on behalf of a client or party, can suffer fools gladly (after all, many of their clients are fools), and can understand irrationality in other people.
And PS to 65, and er, they don’t actually approve of “democracy” in that their every word and action will be challenged raucously by a whole crowd who want to snatch their jobs!
Senior business people are used to getting their own way and the organisation (at least in the jolly green oil giant for whom I worked for over 20 years)largely revolves around them. For all the hugely impressive commericial talent, such Field Marshalls of Industry frequently have rather thin skins who don’t “do” accountability as in elected political life. Some even moan about the annual irritation of the annual AGM and having to be civil to the odd band of nutters from the shires who tend to frequent such occasions.
The notion that this (quite rightly) would be their entire raison d’etre on entering political life would fill them with utter dread which is why that transition is so rare, and usually so catastrophic (as Sean has noted) when the attempt is made.
If it is indeed a choice between Davis or Cameron i’d be happy with either! The awful danger is that it ends up as Fox v Lansley.
re: business and politics, wasn’t John Major an executive with a bank? Letwin is an exective with a Merchant Bank, i’m sure there are others.
…And Sean, shouldn’t you be again declaring an interest as a solicitor IIRC
69 - Sean - true, but how much of it is also that you can easily combine a legal and a political career in the way you can’t with a business career?
re 70. It will be interesting to see how Paul (Lord) Drayson does at Defence procurement. I get very uneasy that two major party donors, Drayson and Sainsbury are now ministers.
Anyone know how ex professional gamblers get on in politics?
re 24. Lorcan
Fife is not a “county”, it is a kingdom.
Yes the match last night was fab, from another Chelsea fan. A classic Italian job.
On the issue of businessman as politicians, most are very unsuccessful. There is a classic example (I think under Heath) and I cannot remember who it is, of a leading business person completely failing in government. I also wonder if there is a divided between businessman who have reached the top of companies and entrepeneurs (25 new Tory MP’s have started up their own small businessess apparently I read in the Indy yesterday). As for Laws, we will see as to how successful he will be. Just because you have a dazzling CV, it does not necessarily translate into political success (see Archie Norman or more controversially Geoffrey Robinson).
I am amused by those suggesting the Lib Dems have a lot of future leaders. Like the Tories they suffer from the fact, that the most talented MP’s are the most inexperienced. Of those who could run, Campbell is v.good if you like the statesman like figure and Hughes if you want a communicator with a left wing streak (if you want to chase labour votes). As for Cable, while he is bright, he lacks charisma (like Willetts or Lansley). Oaten, lacks political judgement and does not strike me as being bright enough for the job. As for Davey, only the Lib Dems could see him as a serious candidate for leadership. Having said that many of your new MP’s seem to have bags of potential so the future looks good for you, as it does for the Tories as well.
Oaten is so oily. He has a very negative effect on me - turn off the TV because can’t stand him droning on in his patronising way.
77 - Archie Norman is a good example of a businessman who didn’t have mush of an impact as an MP. It’s hard to think of anyone who has made the transition really successfully.
Heseltine?
There was Lord Young of Graffham in the 1980s, though obviously not being in the Commons will never get you right to the top.
Rteturing for a mo to the thread’s topic (ironic as yesterday’s was ‘Will Davis be rewarded for his forebearance in 2003), looks as if Derek Conway is trying a reprise of his rather successful tactic against IDS (whom he loathed with a vengeance as senior whip in the Major government over the Maastricht rebellions). But I’m sure this is already backfiring and hurting Davis. I can only guess that he and unlikely ideological bedfellows as Damian Green (revenge is best served cold?)believe that Howard is now so seriously weakened after the ham fisted attempt to railroad the constitutional changes that now is the time to strike.
Frankly, neither ’side’ has emerged with any credit, and I suspect I’m not alone among the poor bloody blue (or red if we’re Alastair from Beaconsfield
) infantry in observing with incredulity and dismay at the Parlaimentary party’s reversion to self-indulgent indiscipline. Not that it matters, but I’m increasingly uncertain about my previous support for the leadership to be chosen by the MPs. More immediately, I don’t have a warm and fuzzy feeling about next month’s South Staffs election….
49 - Yes you are correct , 28% did vote for Michael Foot in 1983 and presumably many of these were Left Wing Old Labour supporters who actually supported their policies although some of course were not such as Tony Blair ?? . I find it harder to believe but could be wrong that Conservative voters in 1997 supported incompetence and sleaze .
I also find it stranger that now sleaze and incompetence have faded somewhat into the past , the Conservatives are polling so little above their hardcore support in 1997 .
Andrew @ 78 - You said that oaten lacks political judgement - are there particular examples you are thinking of? (This is a genuine question not a snipe btw)
83 - John, S Staffs will be a shoo-in for you lot. Safe seat, clear repository for protest votes against Blair, Lib Dems starting from zilch in not natural territory.
78 - interesting point, there is a clear difference between Entrepreneurs and those who’ve risen through the ranks, as it were. I suspect the latter will be far more used to compromising than the former, which is probably a more useful political skill.
Re [44] Being a leader is all about having:
- a vision linked to a coherent philosopny
- the ability to inspire people with that vision
- the ability to draw people in to work towards that vision
- the ability to “kick @rse” when necesary
- the ability to make decisions
- the ability to seek and use good advice
I think that the first point about philosphy is probabably the most important- and the most difficult for the Conservatives to get on top of at the momment. I also share the view that the new intake of Lib Dems is far more likely to make the party punch above its weight. While Anatole Kaletsky is right to say that being a business leader per se does not qualify any given individual to be a successful politican- the fact is that the intellectual energy that people like David Laws, Vince Cable, John Hemming (not to mention the former Economist journalist, Chris Huhne) and so on are bringing to the Liberal Democrats makes it far more likely that the party will present economically credible and imaginative policies at the next election. The tax proposals in the 2005 election did not really work, but they did set some of the political agenda. I would submit that the ideas that are being discussed in the Lib Dems at the moment are the most radical and intellectually coherrent to have emerged from any party in over a generation. The Conservatives, by contrast can not not square the circle of libertarian and authoritarian strands within the party unless there is a real and open debate- a debate that is likely to be both highly public and fairly painful. Davis seems to be positioning himself as a libertarian, although he also votes against things like legal equality for gays. Cameron is harder to read- he seems more credibly libertarian than Davis, even though he seems to be the preferred candidate of the highly authoritarian Howard. In any event if the Conservatives were not in deep trouble then they would hardly be scouting around for yet another leader. The Tory campaign was all about tactics, but the basic principles were missing- hence the very thin manifesto. The great question now, is that having been a broad coalition for government since the 1950’s, what are the Conservatives actually for, if the Lib Dems have stolen their former radicalism and intellectual energy and if NuLab (or if John Prescott then GnuLab) have stolen their will to power?
Andre Milne @78: I think you may be referring to John Davies, the former DG of the CBI, who was elected for Knutsford in 1970 and was elevated to the Cabinet as effectively DTI Secretary in July. At the Tory Conference that used he used the phrase “lame ducks” which I think was the first time it entered our political parlance. Otherwise, he was not successful though he remained in the Cabinet right through until February 1974.
Interestingly, he remained in politics, and IIRC was brought back to the front bench by Mrs T as Shadow Foreign Secretary. At the 1976 Confrence he was (disgracefully) howled down by delegates for his dfence of sanctions against the Smith regime in Rhodesia. By then he was already suffering from the brain tumour that killed him a few months later. I guess he will always be a proverbial footnote in history but one who may actually deserve more sympathy than he is usually given.
Steve @86 : “You lot”. Is there a doppleganger Tabperson out there? Be nice, nice, nice….
South Stafss - easy Tory win even though I can’t stand Cormack. He was on the radio on polling day saying the election in his seat should not have been postponed
90 - should have been your lot
Besides, who was it said “Speak softly, but carry a big stick”?
For goodness sake Tories, get your act together. the whole point of howard not leaving sraight away was to caretake a good hand over.
Put the long knives (or should that be long mobiles?) away. The bloke is leaving anyway.
Just when you thought the Tories had got the message, they revert to type.
92. From memory (but not googled) I think President Teddy Roosevelt who then fought the 1912 election as a Bull Moose Candidate. Why does our beloved Deputy PM spring to mind?
93. Hear Hear!
Somebody should tell Derek Conway (or maybe that should be David Davis).
94 - my googling proves you correct:
“”Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick”
As Governor of New York Teddy Roosevelt fought with the party bosses, who threatened, to “ruin” him if he didn’t cooperate with appointements. In the end the boss gave in.
Nathan Miller in his book “Theodore Roosevelt, A Life”, page 337, writes
“Looking back upon his handling of the incident, Roosevelt thought he ‘never saw a bluff carried more resolutely through to the final limit.’ And writing to a friend a few days later, he observed: ‘I have always been fond of the West African proverb: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” ‘ ”
This proverb popularly attributed to Roosevelt served him well in his presidency.”
Anyone see intersting piece about Lib Dem treasurer resigning in Februaruy over the party’s acceptancew of a two million pouns donation in today’s times, and yet no media coverage at the time?! A little eveidence of media bias perhaps? Imagin if that had been the tories or labour?
93 - well, if nothing else it provides good entertainment value. Is that the sound of steel on steel?
98 - if its media bias, its that the media isn’t interested as it thinks we’re irrelevant. You can’t have it both ways.
Hundred is it true Charlie Kennedy is under fierce assault from the southern wing of his party who believe his local income tax policy was a disaster for them in south and south east england vis Guildford and Newbury?
Maybe you Lib Dems Are joining the big boys, even you are developing a taste for backstabbing the leader!
I don’t think the Conservatives are doing anything wrong. There is a vacuum caused by the imminent departure of the leader and likely candidates are trying to fill it before one of their competitors does. This was to be expected as soon as MH said he was going. I suspect this headlong rush would be going on in the Labour Party if there was more than one likely candidate.
Relax Tories! For once no-one (except your manipulative soon to be ex-leader) has done anything wrong. And none of the electorate (even those that are noticing) will fault the behaviour of the aspiring candidates or their supporters.
88 James, thoughtful response. I’d like to discuss it further with you, could you drop me a line on tabman@thatsaid.co.uk please?
David at 101. You make an interesting point. No-one believed at the last election that the Lib Dems would be in a position to implement a single one of their policies. So why should the voters of Guilford care less what their policy on local income tax or anything else was? It has always puzzled me why the Lib Dems bother with detailed policy. Their prime function surely is to be ‘not Tory’ or ‘not Labour’
roger @ 104 - thank you for that thoughtful & penetrating observation
101 - the Lib Dems don’t do “fierce assault” since Paddy hung up his combats (ah … the days when we had a real special forces leader … the Tories will be making do with an ersatz one … ::D)
105 - did you vote for him?
I made that same ‘thoughtful and penetrating observation’ to your last leader and he didn’t disagree with me.
David Davis would be wise to reign his backers in on this matter. There is an old saying - “He who wields the dagger never wears the Crown” as Michael Heseltine discovered 15 years ago.
He’ll just have to be patient and allow the rule changes to be fully debated and implemented. If he forces a contest now, Howard having already announced his departure he’ll damage his own chances.
Roger, Your sea to shining sea of thoughtful and penetrating observations have made you a legend in your own lunchtime. Tabman has already promised me the beer and sandwiches at the pb.com Festivity. You are booked for the cabaret…
A H Matlock at 108:
I’ve never understood that.
Maggie Thatcher wielded the knife on Ted Heath.
She wore the crown, all right.
Didn’t Ted Heath pressure Alec Douglas-Home to step down?
And going further back, Bonar Law’s coup on Austen Chamberlain worked okay.
The only time it has been true is for Hezza.
…..Must find out when it is. I can’t allow all you Tories to have the place to yourselves or you’ll only start plotting…..you know what you’re like.
111 - Book Value will be posting on this presently.
PHONEY EMAIL ADDRESSES—Have you contacted New Labour Campaign Headquarters for advice or asking them to refrain!
110 - It may be something of a modern political convention, Andy. In the case of Mrs Thatcher, she was the one who forced the contest against Heath, but to be frank, we desperately needed to get rid of him. He’d led us into four elections and only won one of them. At the time the received wisdom was that Willie Whitelaw would probably succeed anyhow, and Mrs Thatcher would fall short. It didn’t turn out that way of course, but her victory was not expected.
Nobody really knows how much Heath had to do with Alec Douglas Home’s departure, but my view would be that the old squire recognised himself that he wasn’t up to the job and that he probably should never have allowed MacMillan to push his candidacy, indeed it would have been better if MacMillan had stayed on himself! But that’s another story.
The Party seems to want people in it’s ranks who are capable of grasping the nettle and wielding the dagger when it’s necessary, but it does, on the evidence of the last 30 years at least, seem reluctant to turn things over to those individuals.
104. Apparently they did care, the results across the country seemed to reflect it their spectacular gains V Labour while conceding a small amount of ground to Labour. It may well have helped tip the balance against the in Tory Seats.
Labour Strategists were also scornful of the Lib Dem decapitation startegy saying whayt it mostly achieved was to motivate lapsed and latent Conservative Voters in those SEats who had stayed away in 1997 and 2001 to get out and vote.
All in all the Lib Dems Campaign V the Tories was inneffective.
Still THe Lab Campaign in Wales made thayt look professional. Peter Hain or Peter vain dependin on your point of view, is being blamed 1. For losing Blaenaue Gwent by imposing an all wimmin shortlist to block Law and then 2. Compunding it by switiching resouces and people from monmout with the result the Conservatives hammered them therea
How many people look at manifestos and vote accordingly? A voter in Guilford surely wont be put off voting Lib Dem because they have a policy that might cost them money when they know there is zero chance of it being implemented. I can understand not voting for a third party on a point of principle because we all want to have an MP who broadly shares our values. But we are all realistic enough to see the difference between an unimplimentable policy and a principle.
Roger @ 115, how many Tories voters this time round genuinely thought that Howard would end up as PM, or for that matter thought would win Hague in 2001?
The question for the tories is who is going to recapture those missing 8-10 % of voters for the next election . Are any of the contenders likely to pull off that trick. Even at this early stage the omens are not great. The most telling of post election polls must have been that only 42% of voters would consider voting Conservative next time compared to 52% for the Lib Dems and 57% for Labour. Very sobering numbers for the blue cause.
The other telling figure is the 130 odd gains the Conservatives must make for victory . Running down the list this seems unlikely , principely because of the Lib Dems blocking minority .
Although we must be cautious of “events dear boy, events” even this far out it, looks like another Labour government in 2009/10 or a hung parliament , so who is best for the tories in such circumstances - perhaps someone who didn’t throw their hat in the ring this time round ?
My point about Oaten, was referring to some of the examples he used with his phrase ‘tough liberalism’. Now there is a strong case for saying that the home office follows too illiberal policies (it does probably in general). However Oaten uses examples like community sentencing and punishment, rather than talking about issues such as prison education and drug treatment centres, which are a good liberal response to crime in this country and have strong support accross the nation.
Actually on law and order in general, I will be very interested to see which party comes out first with the policy of elected police chiefs, which in my view would be a popular policy.
91 - well it’s a silly rule and needs changing.
104 - Just because nobody thinks they’ll be in Government doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote for them if you don’t like their policies - let a perception build that a certain policy is popular and it will become Government policy one day - the consensus building in some quarters about the LIT will at the very least reduce the chances that the Government review of Council funding proposes it as a solution.
Re. 119 - I thought elected police chiefs was already Tory policy?
[115] Well, the Lib Dems lost Newbury, Weston super Mare, Guildford, Devon West and Ludlow- all (with the possible exception of Guildford)traditional shire counties seats that the Tories already have plenty of. The Lib Dems gained Solihull - once one of the safest Tory seats in the country- but a similar demographic to seats where the Tories have fallen apart- that is in every city except London, together with Westmoreland - reducing still further the number of seats that the Conservatives have north of the Humber and Taunton. Nationally, the Lib Dem vote was up about 4%, the Conservative vote up around 1%. This time the Tories got luckier on the FPTP lottery, but that does not really mean the same as the Lib Dems were ineffective- what it does mean is that the Conservatives are still locked in a certain type of seat and have not broadened their appeal one jot since 2001.
117 Bullseye. That’s the difference between an opposition and a third party. With the two main parties the choice has to be between two sets of policies and possibly values. If the policies aren’t to be implemented this time they must be at least a marker for next time. With a third party this doesn’t apply as they wont be implementing their policies in the forseeable future so the usefullness of a vote for them can be either as a protest against another party or as a positive vote for their values.
54 - Bullseye you are starting to sound like Dan! If you care to read the contributions BEFORE I posted mine you will see to what I was referring. Yours of course came afterwards - does that make it of low tone? The only “poisonous bilge” on here usually emanates from the various Lib Dem activists!
Interestingly if you care to read my various contributions over the last several months you will find that my predictions and comments have a rather better likelihood to become reality than those of your Lib Dem colleagues.
Still to have inspired such ire from a Lib Dem candidate like yourself fills me with joy!
Re. Oaten - I find him interesting on television. He can also be very punchy - I thought he excelled in the home affairs debate on Newsnight towards the end of the campaign. He seems to have become something of an unofficial opposition home affairs spokesman on the BBC, rather like Campbell on foreign affairs. I’d like to see more of the economic people out there, though, and that’s the challenge.
88 Chris Huhne was also a managing director at Fitch IBCA as it was then.
124 - such as your victory in S&C? Or your colleague in C&W? Oops
Richard - I think describing Julia Goldsworthy as fragrant is very unfair. She is actually intelligent as a look at her CV will reveal.
“Interestingly if you care to read my various contributions over the last several months you will find that my predictions and comments have a rather better likelihood to become reality than those of your Lib Dem colleagues.”
Erm, like the Lib Dems losing half their seats? Some of us may be a bit too optimistic but not so wildly as you were in predicting 28 seats for us! (I’m being my kind, emollient self in giving you the benefit of the rounding as well as the treatment of by-election gains).
Really, as I’ve said before, it’s about tone. You are not somehow being victimised for being a Tory. You don’t find many of us “poisonous” Lib Dems assailing members of other parties who contribute in the spirit of the site.
126 - GQ - I was thinking more of my prediction of the Lib Dems losing seats in the SOuth to us and making unexpected gains in the North; of our gain in Reading East (despite Lib Dem predictions of them gaining - which I described as nonsense); the Labour majority of 60 give or take 10 seats; the process and timetable Howard would follow to implement the new rules etc etc
WRT S&C you can hardly blame a candidate for predicting his own victory!
Burstow told people he would double his majority!! Lol
128 - If you read the postings of Dan and Big Tall Tim you will see the sort of cr*p they post! You can hardly expect me to sit idly by! During the election I pulled my punches as I was described in various ways that would have ended up with them flat on their backs had they said it to my face!
As I have said before people like Dan and BTT post behind relative anonymity and can therefore be a rude and insulting as they like. During the campaign Nick, I and others needed to keep out of it for fear of comments ending up in the press (see Nigel Hastilow in 2001 (?)). I have no such constraints now as a humble party member.
As Nick will I am sure testify, where engaged in rational debate I respond accordingly but I see no need for Bulleyes personal attack at 54, following my very general comments earlier.
It says more about Bullseye - but he is a lib Dem activist!
129 - Ah, self-selecting, I see.
As book value rightly points out, you predicted massive gains for yourself at our expense (net +2 in reality), and a net reduction in our seats (net +10 in reality). Seeing as our optimistic aim was 70 seats, that would put us in the realms of reality more than it does you
130 - would you disagree that insulting every liberal democrat in most of your posts (with aid of a great abundance of exclamation marks!!!) isn’t really engaging “rational debate” and instead a broad “personal attack”?
130 - Rik, you’ve not had a pop at me. What am I doing wrong?
131 - GQ as I posted on another thread, I was wrong on the Lib Dems losing seat net. However I qas quite right about the failure of the ludicrous decapitation strategy and about gaining seats from you in the south. Losing W&L and Solihull was unfortunate but the gains in Newbury and Guildford were brilliant. Also if you look at Lib Dem seats across the South very few now are “safe” on any definition. The Lib Dem position vs the Tories is now very precarious. Even Simon Hughes recognises the failure of your strategy!
You are of course ignoring the repeated predictions of Tory meltdown, which some less mature posters were typing almost every night on here. Perhaps you prefer to forget that!
130 - Tabman - that could be because you debate the point and dont descend into personal insults!
132 - GQ - No!
134 - No more than you forget your prediction of a LibDem meltdown, which makes you about even with predictors of a Tory one, so you weren’t “rather better” with predictions
137 - Hmmmm making up history!!!
I dont recall ever predicting Lib Dem meltdown. I did predict a squeeze by the two big parties which I thought would result in a net loss of seats. As I said, I was wrong as Labour failed to complete their half of the equation. However, that is not the same as night after night of childish postings of Tory meltdown and so called serious analysis of why the Lib Dems were now the “real” opposition.
GQ you need to look at the facts not at what you would like them to have been.
My oh my ….the Tories and the Lib Dems squabbling in defeat, and Labour on course for victory in 4/5 years time - see my 118 , the bitter fruits of opposition….
138 - I’d say losing a lot of seats would be a meltdown for us, tbh.
140 - I referred to a net loss of seats and thought you would get about 45, if you care to look back at my predictions. As it happens you were much more successful against Labour than I anticipated and much less successful against us than you and others anticipated. As for predictions, there were regular discussions of Lib Dem seat totals of 80+ with the Tories being net losers and Labout being 100+ majority.
In this prediction game no-one is 100% accurate but I am happy to be judged on my complete record of predictions rather than on one individual aspect.
“As it happens you were… much less successful against us than you and others anticipated.”
I hoped we’d make a net gain against you, but I don’t recall expecting a large one.
I am not saying you were completely wrong or that I/we were completely correct, just that you were not completely correct and your generalising of all the lib dems on this site as being completely delusional and sinister, sometimes, is not only wrong, but insulting.
139 - Jack, it’s not really the Tories, it’s more of a subset called Tory (ex-?) PPCs for Sutton & Cheam. It is all the Lib Dems though
Why am I reminded of that scene in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”?
Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s left arm.
Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Black Knight: ‘Tis but a scratch.
Arthur: A scratch? Your arm’s off!
Black Knight: No, it isn’t.
Arthur: Well, what’s that then?
Black Knight: I’ve had worse.
Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on you pansy!
Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s right arm.
Arthur: Victory is mine! We thank thee Lord, that in thy mercy…
Black Knight: No one can pass me.
Arthur: What?
Black Knight: No one can pass me.
Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight: Then you will die.
Arthur: I command you as King of the Britons to let me past!
Black Knight: I move for no man.
Arthur: So be it!
Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s left arm.
Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Black Knight: It’s only a scratch.
Arthur: A scratch? Your arm is off!
Black Knight: No, it isn’t.
Arthur: Well, what’s that then?
Black Knight: I’ve had worse.
Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on you homosexual (derogatory)!
Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s right arm.
Arthur: I win! We thank you Lord, that in your mercy…
Black Knight: Come on then.
Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you!
Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard, you’ve got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
Arthur: Look!
Black Knight: Just a flesh wound.
Arthur: Look, stop that.
Black Knight: Chicken! Chicken!
Arthur: Look, I’ll have your leg. Right!
Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s leg.
Black Knight: Right, I’ll do you for that!
Arthur: You’ll what?
Black Knight: Come ‘ere!
Arthur: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I’m invincible!
Arthur: You’re a loony.
Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.
Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s other leg.
Black Knight: All right; we’ll call it a draw.
Arthur: Come, Patsy.
Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastard! Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!
Now it’s over Rik and you are but a humble constituent let’s hear what you were really hearing on the doorstep about your (soon to be ex)leader? Was he really a ‘vote winner’? And what about Crosby? Did he really do your campaign any favours?
143 - I could of course invoke my mate Marcus in support, as well as quite a few others
BTW love Monty Python.
145 - Rik, as a “worthy adversary” will you buy me a drink at the pb.com party?
143 , Tabman , excellent , I’d forgotten that gem of British comedy.