Is this the man for the Tory party?
July 3rd, 2005
-
The sentiment moves to Cameron
After favourable press comment at the weekend and his emergence as the clear challenger to David Davis the money has been piling on David Cameron to be the next Tory leader.
Since Friday the best bookmaker price on the young Etonian has tightened from 7/1 to 5/1 and the signs are that this will move further.
In a flattering piece in the Sunday Times under the heading At last, a fanciable Tory Indira Knight writes that although she has never thought of supporting the Tories before a party led by Cameron might swing it.
She notes… So: the Tories have got their chance to snare the likes of me and of a sizeable majority of my friends. If the party has any sense at all, it will elect Cameron to the leadership and, if the feeling in the air is anything to go by, very possibly pocket a great big slew of votes from people who have never voted Tory before, and never imagined they ever would — unless of course Cameron suddenly outs himself as a believer in the intrinsic evil of all immigrants, or as a weird homophobe. If they’re stupid, which they might well be, the Tories will pass him by on grounds of chippiness, and we’ll continue to have no effective opposition, and we’ll all fall into a deep, coma-like sleep of boredom. Which will it be, I wonder?
In an article in the Sunday Telegraph the senior Tory front-bencher, Oliver Letwin comes out strongly for the Shadow Education Secretary. He notes:-
The phrases which form Cameron’s leitmotif - “We are all in this together”, “a decent society”, “a government which is aware of its own limitations rather than a government which is limited in its aspirations” - are phrases that will stick. They express the instincts that will enable us to win elections and to provide Britain with the government she needs. To judge by my experience of working with David, he is someone who lives the message, someone who actually believes in free markets, a stronger society, a more civilised Britain and a more civilised politics. I hope that he will stand. If he does, despite my admiration for other colleagues, I shall back him.
The current 5/1 on Cameron is a good value bet. Take it while it lasts - I have.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m probably missing something, but wasn’t Cameron responsible for the Tory manifesto and the weren’t the tories policies considered right-winged in the last campaign? Why is he seen now as a centrist moderniser?
and I’m starting to feel sorry for Alan Duncan, will someone support him? What the hell was he thinking when he decided to run?
Yes I know it’s early but it has to be to beat Jack W to the caption contest ……. I said the Conservatives would not get back into power till the cows come home .
Said it before ( as a non Conservative ) the best of a poor bunch , age a bit of a gamble , but you never get anywhere in life by not taking a gamble sometimes .
I’ve just watched Gordon Brown being interviwed and the next Conservative leader will be facing a very different opponent from the one they’re facing now. Tony Blair is unique among world leaders in his charisma and articulacy. In many ways we havent seen his like before. Gordon Brown is quite different. Perhaps even an antidote. He will (at best) be seen as intellectually rigorous and solid. The Tories are forever looking for a charismatic character to compete with Blair and frankly no one comes near(Clark is as close as they get). Now they’re facing a different sort of opponent they should look for a different sort of leader. An honest intellectual like Brown who can compete on that level. I would think, though he lacks charisma David Willets is your man. He always sounds intelligent and doesn’t seem to have the narcissism that Davis and Cameron have. Cameron by comparison is just a puffball
3. It depends if voters will want a intellectually solid PM (but with not much personal charisma and maybe a little boring) or a PM full of charisma (but maybe with little substance).
Andrea. You have hit the nail on the head. Cameron was responsible for the manifesto that contributed to the Tories wipe-out but it was a manifesto that was wholeheartedly supported by all of the party. I remember on these boards the only Tory poster who thought their campaign was in any way flawed was Andrew Milne. For all the rest it was spot on. I recommend you read the introduction (six pages)to the research done by Lord Ashcroft into the Tories failure.
As he says “The country weren’t thinking what we were thinking” and this is why Conservatives just don’t get it. What they’re selling the majority of the country just doesn’t want.
Ashcroft again. “Successive dismal and entirely expected election defeats had not muted the Conservatives insistance that published opinion polls were not to be trusted…….”
He commissioned six major pieces of research and as he says “We learned that while other parties’supporters had a similar profile to Britain as a whole, Conservatives did not….Their attitudes to contempory social and cultural issueswere often different to those of other people…..”
There you have it. The aspirations of their supporters are not the aspirations of the majority which suggests to me a long period of reflection.
http://www.lordashcroft.com
Introduction well worth reading (thanks to Icarus on the other thread)
Cameron may have produced the ‘manifesto’ but then the manifesto wasn’t the problem. Cameron has long been on record of saying that the Conservatives need to have more to say about health, education etc and less about issues like immigration. The manifesto didn’t give overt prominence to immigration - it was the campaign (whether you blame Howard/Crosby or the media) that did that.
6- So in Autumn 2004 they thought that they were headed in 103 seats of the most marginal seats. They should fire the pollster or they should fire themself to have thrown away a lead like that one!
They were thinking to gain seats like Halifax (130th in the whole tories target list and around the 100th position of the tory target over Labour).
…and Ashcroft himself is not without blame. I live in Bedford which was Labour’s 111th most marginal seat on May 5th. Yet the Tory candidate was one of the lucky 30 or so who became recipients of Ashcroft’s largesse. I commented here at the time how odd it was that money should be ploughed into what clearly was not a marginal.
Judging by the Bedford Tory candidate one has to question Ashcroft’s political judgement. The guy was local, rich and presentable - his failing was that he did not seem to understand politics.
The Ashcroft-funded campaign would have been fine if the Tory had been running for mayor or, as the Labour incumbent noted, “for sheriff”, but is was completely wrong in a Westminster election.
When I researched what Ashcroft was doing I was expecting that his “chosen” PPCs would be something special. That certainly was not the case here.
I’ll be delighted to lose money if Cameron wins. Hague was considered inexperienced and he’d been in the Cabinet, admittedly as low-ranking Welsh Secretary.
However I agree that the problem was the lack of serious policies about the fundamentals of education, health and the other big issues.
But I’m not sure there’s all that much connection between the betting markets, which after all is made by people like us, and the actual probabilities of particular people being elected. The campaign is going to be largely in private between the MPs, even if they occasionally let the rest of us know what they’re doing by publishing in the papers.
As for matching leaders with the Labour party. I think a party should chose its most talented person for leader. A solid intellectual can win and win - look at Kohl in Germany. But whether the most able Tory happens to be an intellectual type, or a charistmatic type, or whatever else, then that’s the person best able to beat Brown.
… and Nick Palmer points out on another thread that Letwin’s endorsement is significant and will improve Cameron’s chances a little. I still can’t see him winning though.
Cameron is the interesting but risky choice, Davis is the ‘things are going OK, we just need one more heave’ choice. I really have no idea whether Cameron would go down well or be dismissed as a young lightweight, but he’d certainly get public attention as the Tories trying something different.
My guess is that the outcome will be Davis in the leadership with Cameron widely seen as his likely successor if Davis doesn’t win the next election. I don’t think the Tories are quite ready for a decisive change.
9. I thought that one of the Ashcroft’s aims was to create new marginals for the next election, but in this case the decision to target 160 seats is not so different.
Mike, I think your first sentence above should read David “Cameron” at the end.
I don’t think Cameron will be dismissed as a young lightweight as much as a typical ‘Tory boy’.
Another ‘groundhog day’
All is not rosy in the Lib Dem garden: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=354426&in_page_id=1770
16.
From the Daily Mail article:
“growing questions about his health. ”
What health problems does he have?
@ 5 Err Roger, you’ve forgotten to take the tablets again !!
What Conservative “wipeout” ?
16 - Dear Oh Dear Rik , Your anti Lib Dem paranoidcy is showing again . What are the odds that the article is nothing more than a very poor version of a Zinoviev type letter published in a vain hope it will adversely effect Lib Dems in Cheadle .
Roger @ 15
‘Tory boy’.
I think not !
According to the Daily Mail, he has always got problems with his health…he is a drunk…looney policies…morally corrupt…waste of space…far left…soft on everything…
Just about sums up their editoral stance on the Lib Dems.
Of course I may be wrong, but I am sure kennedy, afer so long in the Commons, would know about the declaration of interests procedure, and that it is unlikely he would go against the rules. Kennedy’s office seemed quite happy to clarify the situation and admitted that the holiday and upgrades had taken place etc.
We’ll seehow it progresses.
18 - I agree Roger’s wipeout is an exaggeration . I would rather agree with Lord Ashcroft on this quote ” Total Disaster ” .
19 - MArk dear boy - I didnt write the article! We will have to see how this story develops but I do know that there is a group of Lib Dem MP’s who want to see the back of Kennedy before the next election because they consider that he failed to deliver this time.
18 & 22 - the last election was neither a “wipe out” nor a “total disaster”. More accurately, it was modest but encouraging progress.
BTW if it was a “wipe out” or a “total disaster” for the Tories who gained 33 seats, what was it for the Lib Dems, who gained only 10? - Discuss!
“David Devious”
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=15693253&method=full&siteid=106694
23 - “Total Disaster” were not my words but those of the person who poured a fortune into Conservative coffers without which your party would probably not have made 33 gains .
You may be correct that a number of Lib Dem MPs would prefer another leader to CK , but I hardly think that was the reason for the article in the Mail and it is pretty clear what that motif is .
23.”if it was a “wipe out” or a “total disaster” for the Tories who gained 33 seats, what was it for the Lib Dems, who gained only 10? - Discuss!”
Try to calculate the % icrease of seats of the 2 parties.
26 - Putting on a fairly impartial hat on , the GE result was a reasonable result for all the 3 parties , Labour because they won a majority and Con and Lib Dem because they both made progress if not as great as each one hoped for . The next GE will be more influenced by which party looks to the futute rather than dwelling on might have beens at the last GE .
27. Almost every party could be happy and at the same time disappointed by this election. Labour got a majority, but maybe it hoped in a 100 seats majority; the tories gained seats, but they didn’t make any real progress in terms of % votes; the Libdems increased their votes and their seats, but they could have hoped in a bigger increase; the SNP gained seats,but it fell in terms of votes.
PC is the only one that has nothing to be happy about and Respect has nothing to be disappointed about (Galloway won and they have some others second places).
Agree with 27 and 28 (and that rather accords with Rik’s ‘modest but encouraging’ line for the Tories…and doubtless for Labour and LibDems too.
I suspect there may be some truth in the alleged ‘David Devious’ story. “DD of SS” features periodically in the hilarious (and not really challenged) account of the calamitous 1992-97 years by Gyles Brandreth, himself a whip for the last two or so years. This from June 21st 1996 meeting of the whips’ “annual assessments” of Ministers:
“…We all know that DD is unhappy, already difficult, potentially more troublesome, feeling overworked and undervalued, and believes he should be in the Cabinet NOW, NOW, NOW…”
And this was with the ‘light touch’ reserved for former members of the whips’ club… I wonder what they really thought.
I do agree with Alastair Matlock (on another post) that the decison that forthcoming party conference should be an explicit candidates’ forum is excellent. Might even be worth attending
I don’t think there were many of us who thought we were ahead in 103 marginal seats last Autumn. I consistently predicted about 40 or so gains, which I think was the consensus among politically active Conservatives (and non-Conservatives).
The percentage increase in seats for both Conservatives and Lib Dems was similar (a gain of about 20% in each case).
16/24 , Rik & AT . Expecting the Mail or Mirror groups to profer impartial or objective political commentary is like expecting The Daily Telegraph to endorse the SWP at the GE or for Anne Widdecomde to exalt the virtues of devil worship and free love !!
I’m afraid the Mail group still can’t quite believe that the British electorate have three times rejected their advise to elect the Tories , despite al the lies, spite and bile they pour on the government . Very frustrating for Mail , quite wonderful for the rest of us who refuse all their blandishments of prize cottages and ghastly free CDs .
So Charlie Kennedy got an upgrade on his honeymoon ?!?!?! and David Davies is devious……..they’re politicians.
30-”I don’t think there were many of us who thought we were ahead in 103 marginal seats last Autumn. I consistently predicted about 40 or so gains, which I think was the consensus among politically active Conservatives (and non-Conservatives).”
Probably the pollster who made that private poll was under the effect of some drugs.
“The percentage increase in seats for both Conservatives and Lib Dems was similar (a gain of about 20% in each case). ”
When I asked for it, I didn’t want to point out that the Libdems increase was bigger. I was only too lazy to do it myself.
31,”So Charlie Kennedy got an upgrade on his honeymoon ?!?!?! ”
The best part of the Daily Mail’s article is when they felt the need to point out that even Joan Collins went there for her honeymoon.
1 & 5-You seem to forget that Blair,Brown et al in opposition were busy denouncing Thatcher’s & Major’s policies as Right wing,Reactionary et al.
Blair had campaigned in the 1981 Election (Beaconsfield) for the total withdrawl from the E.C.
When they came to power in 1997 which of these outrageous Thatcherite Right wing policies did they change.
-Sale of Council houses?
-Privatisation?
-Top income tax rate of 40%?
-Scrapping exchange controls?
-Trade Union legislation ?
-Britains Nuclear weapons?
-USA Nuclear weapons at UK bases, Cruise missiles etc.?
33 - But Joan Collins had many honeymoons sadly none of them with me - LOL
34 , Mark . Yes , but didn’t you pour a drink over Joan Collins ??
35 - Not guilty there Jack , drink is too precious to pour anywhere except down the throat ( inside ) .
Re Andrea and Sean.
I didn’t know where they got the 103 from either, In the Northwest I could only think of 5 gains in the end we gained one lost one. Personally I was saying 45 seats, i tought they would be all in South east a couple in Southwest, East Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside, Northern Wales and southern Scotland. Admitably I thought all three southern scot seats and conway would fall
FWIW, Suzanne Moore praises David Cameron in her column in today’s Mail on Sunday.
36 , Mark . Are you sure…………?????????
http://www.trashfiction.co.uk/rossiter_collins.html
39 - It ain’t me Babe - You will have Mr Tabman even more confused thinking we are both alter egos of Leonard Rossiter .
Having just got back from the pub where I read the Mail on Sunday story on CK I came back feeling quite positive. The idea that someone somewhere in the world thinks it is worthwhile doing favours to the leader of the Lib Dems must lift the hearts of party supporters everywhere.
If prospects were really bad nobody would ever think of bribery.
re Roger’s “wipeout comment”. The party that suffered the biggest disaster on May 5th was Labour which lost one in every seven votes.
41 , Mark . So are you Rigsby or Reggie Perrin , btw how is the mother-in-law !?!?
43 , Mike . I think that the Tories or the Lib Dems would have liked to have Labours “biggest disaster” don’t you ?
44 - What - lose one in seven of their voters?
44 - SUNS INE DESE TS , I quite like his rise and fall bit like Michael Howard trying to sell Grot , successful for a time but in the end it fails .
Yes agree , winner takes all , it is seats that count not votes .
46.”Yes agree , winner takes all , it is seats that count not votes .”
yes, but I think that tories and Libdems would have not liked to lose 47 seats. Especially because the libdems would have been reduced with 5 seats.
Btw I’ve just noticed how badly Simon Hughes performed. A 5.9% swing to Labour. It have to be one of the worst Libdems performances against Labour in this election.
47 - Yes quite a large swing away from Simon Hughes , I have no idea of the reason(s) , perhaps someone with more local knowledge can enlighten us .
You will have to excuse Jack W and myself talking about Reggie Perrin , I would guess Italian TV never had the benefit of such a good comedy program .
Those of you of a nervous disposition or if you’ve just enjoyed a spot of tiffin…. you should look away now !
OK I’ve got your undivided attention. Now fellow posters what to your hearts desire is the esssential missing from your bathroom ?
If you are Mark Senior then Joan Collins a deu in the tub with a bottle of Cinzano is the dream .
For Tabman it would be sitting in the tin bath with the ghost of Gladstone thundering the great orations of the Midlothian campaign.
Dear book value’s dream is shaving to David Steel’s “… return to your constituencies and prepare for government ….”
For Rik……..well back stratching with Mrs.T…………
For us mere mortals and especially Andrea, we may only aspire to the £10,000 bar of soap ?!?! ……..Yes £10,000 …….made from Silvio Berlusconi’s fat acquired from a liposuction clinic !!!!!!!!
To save the sensibilities of you all I shall refrain from discussing the price list for our own more corpulent parliamentarians …. I shall just leave you with a few names :
Nicholas Soames , Anne Widdecombe , John Prescott , Gywneth Dunwoody …………
Source : The Observer through Ananova .
47/48 , Andrea & Mark . If you’ve recovered from my 49 , IIRC Simon Hughes put his poor performance at the GE to the unpopularity of the local Lib Dem local council.
50.” Simon Hughes put his poor performance at the GE to the unpopularity of the local Lib Dem local council”
He has to explain why the unpopularity of the local council didn’t stop the Libdems to increase their % of vote in Camberwell and Peckham.
After the big swing for him last time, I didn’t expect him to have another big increase, but I expected him to keep more or less his majority. More or less like what happened in Chseterfield. Especially since Labour did pretty bad in London.
48.”You will have to excuse Jack W and myself talking about Reggie Perrin , I would guess Italian TV never had the benefit of such a good comedy program ”
No, sadly. We haven’t made much progress since “George e Mildred” regarding British TV comedy series. Maybe it’s on cable (lots of British things are aired on cable TV now)
Reply: 47
The large swing against Hughes in Bermondsey can be put down to two main factors…
1.)The large swing to him in 2001 was largely thanks to Labour nominating a Black candidate in a notoriously racist area.
2.)The Labour Candidate, Kirsty McNeill, who succeeded in united the notoriously factious Bermondsey and Southwark Labour Party and fought a strong concerted campaign.
And to think, when I said before the election that Hughes’ majority would go down some Posters “laughed me out of court”… it nice when one of your predictions is borne out by events
.
Back to the Tory leadership…
Its beginning to look as though the other candidates in the race for the leadership might as well just pack up their bags and form an orderly circle in the playground round Cameron and Davis.
Cameron has had a very good week or so and is consolidating his position as the only credible challenger to Davis quite rapidly, both Fox and Duncan are going to do very poorly, with Fox making a somewhat bizarre call for single sex education in today’s observer, which smacked of desperation, while Duncan seems to not have any real expectation that he could win, Fox’s ego will be sorely dented if he performs as poorly as I’m expecting.
Rifkin is another candidate with little to recommend him, other than being “Howard Mk2”, having already tired a balding, bespeckeled, ex-Thatcherite Minister who rose to higher office under Major I can’t see any reason why the Tory Party will plum in great numbers for Rifkin this time around. While Rifkin will probably siphon off moderate, “one-nationists” from Cameron he is unlikely to rival Cameron and I would expect him to drop out soon after Fox and Duncan.
Despite Cameron’s good last week or so, Davis still has an impressive lead, word is he has 60-70 MPs already solidly behind him and has expanded his base of support out from the right of the party appealing to moderates and former Clark allies such as Ian Taylor and Damien Green, at the same time he still boasts the necessarily attributes to make a tough and effective leader without the usual draw back of being branded “out of touch” as are many Tories, thanks to a compelling personal narative. What is more on the right Davis faces only Fox as competitor allowing him with his moderate supporters to appeal to undecided MPs while Cameron has to stifle the campaign of both Rifkin, Duncan as well as potentially Clark and Landsley early on, however Cameron seems to be accomplishing this quite well at the moment.
As things stand now, Davis is the favourite but Cameron is still very much in contention and IMHO the gap will narrow over the coming weeks as Undecided MPs and especially members of the new intake make up their minds… at lot of people will be looking to see what Davis says in a policy speech he has seduced for some time next week (can’t remember when), it will be important for him to retake the initiative after Cameron’s good run over recent days as parliament goes into recess and the Conservative MPs enter a long hot summer of campaigning… there’s a long way to go and I have to say I no longer think its going to be a “slam dunk” for Davis, I think Cameron could well make this very competitive and possibly very tight.
51 , Andera . Yes , interesting about Hughes . The only other factor that spring to mind is that perhaps the locals weren’t keen on Hughes running and losing the Mayoralty and thus them being a fall back second best ?? We’ll have to await a Lib Dem encyclical from Tabman on the matter .
BTW on British telly have you seen Blackadder , Fawlty Towers , Porridge , Open All Hours , Dad’s Army , Yes (Prime) Minister or Only Fools and Horses. Please don’t judge British comedy on George and Mildred !!!!!
49 - Would prefer Sophia Loren to Joan Collins but then I’m not that picky - LOL . I don’t buy the unpopular local council excuse either . As Andrea says the swing in his favour at the previous election was unusually high and a la Twigg what goes around comes around and a big swing at one election sometimes gets a little reaction at the next one .
52/53 - I did wonder at the possibility of his standing for mayor having had some effect for the fall in his vote . Would not argue with Ben on on the adverse effects of Labour selecting a black candidate in 2001 though his comments on Bermondsey being notoriously racist is rather over the top .
Did not make any comment on George and Mildred just in case it was written by a Jack W alter persona LOL
OK get back to the Conservative leadership if you must Ben only another 5 months to go .
54 , Mark . Ah…. What is it with gentlemen of a certain age and Sophia Loren ……..???
51 , Ben . Thanks for the Hughes info . As for the Tory leadership they really are dancing around the running blocks before the pistol goes off . I was told on Friday that our Ken was more likely to stand than not as the 20 MPs required for a bid are “easily in the bag” and he was enjoying suport from “unexpected quarters” . That said I’m still not convinced Ken will go for it , although I wish he would.
54 - Mark
I hate to besmirch the good name of sunny, desirable Southwark, but I’m afraid that in 2001 Hughes benefited from the racist attitudes of a not insubstantial number of his constituents who would rather vote for him than Labour’s black and somewhat hapless candidate but in 2005 he faced a better organised, more concerted campaign lead by a white Labour candidate and as a result he suffered adversely when compared with what else happened nationally for the LibDems – Its something I said was likely to happen and some people kicked up a hot fuss about the idea that perhaps race had been an issue in Hughes winning an near 10,000 majority back in 2001… but I would hazard that the 2005 result bears out my argument.
Sorry Mark I posted after 54 and before 55… didn’t mean to leap at you like that… should be more patient I suppose.
While there is, definitely, a residual racist vote in Hughes’ constituency, I think it only played a partial role in the 2001 campaign (it’s indicative that, in 2001 and 2005, it was the NF who stood, securing the remnants of their old 70s vote, not an actively expanding BNP). In 2005 the Tory vote rose, with a fall in pro-Hughes tactical voting a possible explanation.
Good post Ben 52, What is interesting is that this is not an ideological split. Tory MPs will be looking, surely, at who will help them perform best at the next election. Nothing else matters.
I think this is going to get closer and closer. At the moment Davis seems to be over-priced and Cameron underpriced.
52- Thanks about Hughes.
I don’t doubt that Labour fought a strong campaign in Southwark North and Bermondsey, but I suppose they fought a good campaign in many seats where their % of votes fell (almost every seat).
The big swing against the black Labour candidate last time could be an explanation, but many voters lost by Hughes went to the tories (but ok, voters who left a party only becuase the candidate is black could like tories immigration campaign).
Considering the swing from labour to libdems in the whole country I woulnd’t have expected such a big swing against Hughes, certainly not an increase, but not a 5.9% swing against.
Southwark North and Bermondsey’s voters don’t seem to attract good press (homophobic in the 80’s, racist in 2001).
58 - My name Mark not Rik so I don’t get uptight about comments on a board such as this . By it’s nature opposing views will always be here and at least your views have some evidence in their favour .
“I would expect him to drop out soon after Fox and Duncan”
I think that Duncan really wants to run, but I’m not sure he could find 20 nominations.
On the Tory vs Lib Dem election performances, I’m not sure it’s fair to say the proportionate increase in seats was similar so each did similarly well.
Two differences between Tory and Lib Dem performances. The Tories increased from virtually their worst defeat in 170 years. No serious commentator, at any point after the 2001 election expected the Tories to lose seats in 2005. The Lib Dems were aiming to improve on their best performance for 70-odd years, and as after 1997, it had seemed at the beginning of the 2001-5 Parliament that they might have reached their high-water mark.
And then there’s the votes situation. The Tories got essentially the same share of the vote in 2005 as in 2001. The Lib Dems went up by 4%. The Tory gains were basically due to a swing from Labour to Lib Dem (aside from the Tory - Lib Dem front on which they were just ahead). The Lib Dem lack of gains was due to the lack of Labour-Lib Dem marginals compared to Tory - Lib Dem marginals.
Having said all that, the increase in seats WAS very similar between the parties. And of course the Lib Dems came third as ever and 10% behind even the Tories. A lot of the difference in perceptions was to do with aspirations and expectations - Tories were trying to win the election, no serious Lib Dem expected to.
I think that in a two horse race Cameron could and would beat Davis amongst MP’s. DD has made too many enemies in the party to be sure of victory. I also suspect the bulk of the new MP’s will gravitate towards Cameron eventually. Whether Cameron is a good choice is an open question. Certainly he would get people to look again at the party in a fresh light, but he has made bad decisions in the past. The manifesto, was very poor and vacous and seemed the product of a focus group rather than a serious political party. Also he seems to be rowing away from the choice agenda in his speeches as education secretary which is a bad move. The Tory policy on choice in education at the last election while not perfect was a decent step forward. Instead of abandoning it, the Tories need to throw themselves into the intellectual arguments behind their advocacy of choice in education and health. The party must not be afraid of taking on strong vested interests and a sceptical media.
Certainly though Cameron represents a risk. Whether it is a risk the party should take will be determined by his efforts over the next few months? I for one, still retain an open mind on his candidature.
By far the best option would be for Cameron to take over, like Michael Howard, in mid-term. Leaving aside the question of experience and authority, he’ll look stale by the next GE.
It is a worry that there are “60-70 MPs already solidly behind [David Davis]”. I can not see beyond David Davis being, if not an absolute disaster (although more often than not I think he would be) a sideway step for the Tory party. He offers nothing that would go beyond the 33% core vote. Half the time I think he is IDS with more charisma, the other half of the time I think he is IDS with less charisma.
65.” I also suspect the bulk of the new MP’s will gravitate towards Cameron eventually”
What do we know about the new MPs? How many have alredy declared for one of the candidates?
Michael Gove is obviously a Cameron’s supporter, Nick Herbert will back Davis and I read that Justine Greening and Greg Hands are Fox’s supporters.
the Tories have got their chance to snare the likes of me and of a sizeable majority of my friends. If the party has any sense at all, it will elect Cameron to the leadership and, if the feeling in the air is anything to go by, very possibly pocket a great big slew of votes from people who have never voted Tory before, and never imagined they ever would — unless of course Cameron suddenly outs himself as a believer in the intrinsic evil of all immigrants, or as a weird homophobe
This passage is a perfect example of how quickly trendy metropolitan liberals in politics and the media seem to generalise from their own circle of friends and acquaintances to the electorate as a whole. If they talked to ordinary voters on the doorstep they might see just how out of touch their fashionable sentiments really are with what voters actually care about. It also demonstrates rather a short historical memory. It’s worth recalling just how much Sir Keith Joseph was seen by the liberal elites of the mid 1970s as some sort of sick, contemptible bigot, for arguing the benefits of inequality of wealth and against social democratic principles. It didn’t stop real voters thrice endorsing the Thatcher revolution of which he was such an important architect.
Would most of the newer MPs gravitate? I thought a majority of them were closer to Davis in policy terms.
Davis will only survive in the long term if he adopts a modernising agenda, on the old “de Gaulle and Algeria” principle. He might be able to carry it off with more aplomb than IDS, but that’s not a given.
And did she miss Cameron’s speech this week, where he called for special support for traditional marriage, identifying it (correctly) as the best way of raising children? I’d have thought that’s exactly the sort of outlook that would make people Indira Knight call someone a ‘weird homophobe’.
60 – Mike
Praise from Caesar
…I agree, I think Davis will find it hard to get more than 100 MPs backing him, now that’s all that he’ll need, but it doesn’t give him much margin for error either, my sense is that there are at least 60-70 Tory MPs who would NEVER back Davis but they are a fairly eclectic bunch from IDS loyalists to Duncan style Libertarians and Rifkin-esqu grandees… if Cameron cements his position as the anti-Davis, and to be fair I think he’s pretty much more than half way there already, he would be well placed to hoover-up the anti-Davis votes together with his own supporters creating a block of nearly 100. Where this to happen you then have to roughly even blocks backing both Cameron and Davis which would culminate in a very close contest.
I have to say I think there is an ideological dimension to this contest however like the Blair – Brown axis it is as much about emphasis as anything else, largely because within the parliamentary Conservative Party there is a broad consensus over the big policy issues, the party is overwhelmingly Eurosceptic, In favour of private involvement in the public sector and keen to reduce the size of the state. Coming from the Right of the Party Davis offers are far more ideological, populist style while Cameron with backing from the centre and left of the party would like to offer a more consensual, liberal approach with a personal style very similar to Tony Blair’s circa 1994-97… in the end there are differences in emphasis between the perhaps commanding and strident Davis and the apparently more affable Cameron but I would largely agree that there is a broad consensus on policy and the real battle is one over how the Conservative Party wants to be seen, and two completing visions of that seems to have found their personifications in Davis and Cameron respectively.
Overall I agree, this race will get very close… but it will be interesting to see how Davis attempts to regain the initiative over the next week or so, and indeed how this long summer goes for the parliamentary Tory Party…
John Maples is backing David Davis. He said DD “is a better leader than Blair and as good as Thatcher”.
Praise indeed…
69..” If they talked to ordinary voters on the doorstep they might see just how out of touch their fashionable sentiments really are with what voters actually care about”
It’s not that the tories are more in touch with the majority of UK voters or at least they didn’t give many signs in the polling station to think what the tories were thinking .
One of the factors that is often held against Cameron is his background. I’ve argued before that the macho image put about by Davis could alienate a lot of middle class voters, particularly women. Cameron comes across as being quite nice and quite un-frightening and is perhaps more able to win back that sort of voter.
Its also true that we need to win as many C1’s & C2’s as well, but at the end of the day their are a limited number of seats in the South East area and with the best will in the world we’re not going to start winning working class seats in the North and the Mid-lands. More important is to try winning back seats like Edinburgh South, Sheffield Hallam, Edgbaston,(the new!) Yardley and (I didn’t ever think I’d have to say this) Solihull.
73. “John Maples is backing David Davis. He said DD “is a better leader than Blair and as good as Thatcher”.”
Is there a new type of drugs around?
71.”support for traditional marriage, identifying it (correctly) as the best way of raising children”
I still can’t understand how a piece of paper could make a difference in the way to rise children. I don’t see any potential difference between a married couple and a non married couple in the ability to raise children.
72.”Tory MPs who would NEVER back Davis but they are a fairly eclectic bunch from IDS loyalists to Duncan style Libertarians ”
I’m not 100% sure that Alan Duncan will back Cameron at the end.
I am sure I heard somewhere that Alan Duncan is going to “come out” for David Davis in a few weeks.
77. Afterall he’s a personal friend of Derek Conway.
Andrea - I think a public commitment counts for something.
79. oh yes, a good shadow cabinet position is always appreciated.
A quick test - please ignore
It’s not that the tories are more in touch with the majority of UK voters or at least they didn’t give many signs in the polling station to think what the tories were thinking
Clearly the Tories need to win more people over. The point is that Indira Knight’s piece is utterly implausible in proposing that becoming more pro-immigration and pro-homosexual are the way to do it. These are the concerns of Islington cocktail parties, not real numbers of swing voters. It’s worth reading the column in full to see just how weird are the people she’s talking about. This is how she begins:
Rather an odd thing has been happening over the past fortnight. Again and again, the most improbable people keep talking admiringly about David Cameron, MP for Witney and Tory leadership candidate. What is odd about this is that the people in question, myself included, are not natural Conservative voters.
We grew up in the 1980s, loathed Mrs Thatcher and held her personally responsible for destroying the social fabric of Britain in a manner whose aftershocks are still being disastrously felt. I have never in my life voted Conservative — the very idea is like a sort of grotesque, unfunny joke. And yet the Cameron conversation just keeps on cropping up.
Does anyone really propose that this circle of friends are representative of the wider public? I wish they were this enthused and interest in the Conservative Party, because it would provide a real opportunity, but the current squabbles and leadership debate is turning off even staunch politicos. Indira Knight’s friends sound like bizarre political anoraks talking to themselves. They do not represent the way back to power.
I still can’t understand how a piece of paper could make a difference in the way to rise children. I don’t see any potential difference between a married couple and a non married couple in the ability to raise children.
That’s because marriage isn’t merely a piece of paper but a strong and for most people quite strongly binding commitment. The statistics on breakdown of marriages and cohabitations, and on how well children do in school, on likelihood of being abused, in the workplace when they grow up, on whether they enter a life of crime, and all sorts of other things all point to the benefits of marriage. Cameron was right to take account of this (which is why I hope my posts here are seen as pooh-poohing Indira Knight’s column as a representative picture of the electorate, and not David Cameron himself or his leadership campaign).
“Afterall he’s a personal friend of Derek Conway.” - Something only the mediocre sorry great can aspire to
Sorry, messed up italics…
It’s not that the tories are more in touch with the majority of UK voters or at least they didn’t give many signs in the polling station to think what the tories were thinking
Clearly the Tories need to win more people over. The point is that Indira Knight’s piece is utterly implausible in proposing that becoming more pro-immigration and pro-homosexual are the way to do it. These are the concerns of Islington cocktail parties, not real numbers of swing voters. It’s worth reading the column in full to see just how weird are the people she’s talking about. This is how she begins:
“Rather an odd thing has been happening over the past fortnight. Again and again, the most improbable people keep talking admiringly about David Cameron, MP for Witney and Tory leadership candidate. What is odd about this is that the people in question, myself included, are not natural Conservative voters.
“We grew up in the 1980s, loathed Mrs Thatcher and held her personally responsible for destroying the social fabric of Britain in a manner whose aftershocks are still being disastrously felt. I have never in my life voted Conservative — the very idea is like a sort of grotesque, unfunny joke. And yet the Cameron conversation just keeps on cropping up.”
Does anyone really propose that this circle of friends are representative of the wider public? I wish they were this enthused and interest in the Conservative Party, because it would provide a real opportunity, but the current squabbles and leadership debate is turning off even staunch politicos. Indira Knight’s friends sound like bizarre political anoraks talking to themselves. They do not represent the way back to power.
I still can’t understand how a piece of paper could make a difference in the way to rise children. I don’t see any potential difference between a married couple and a non married couple in the ability to raise children.
That’s because marriage isn’t merely a piece of paper but a strong and for most people quite strongly binding commitment. The statistics on breakdown of marriages and cohabitations, and on how well children do in school, on likelihood of being abused, in the workplace when they grow up, on whether they enter a life of crime, and all sorts of other things all point to the benefits of marriage. Cameron was right to take account of this (which is why I hope my posts here are seen as pooh-poohing Indira Knight’s column as a representative picture of the electorate, and not David Cameron himself or his leadership campaign).
Andrea - actually referring to marriage, not Tory leadership. Went a bit off topic there.
Re. 34, the Beaconsfield by-election was in 1982, not 1981.
Back to the original photo…
“Is this the man for the Tory party?”
Well, that chap in the fetching blue cardigan certainly appears to have the same charismatic appeal as IDS.
“Well, that chap in the fetching blue cardigan certainly appears to have the same charismatic appeal as IDS. ”
I think the person in a blue cardigan is actually a lady…
Alan Duncan’s sudden credit within the Party is amazing. Weeks ago, he was known only for being mistaken for Iain Duncan Smith and now people are talking him up as the next Shadow Foreign Secretary. He’ll be shot down in flames, and the next leader will give him a middling post to dampen down his enthusiams for himself.
I have always thought Alan Duncan has played the role of kingmaker in most of the (numerous) recent Tory leadership campaigns.
Re Southwark N & Bermondsey, I think the comments posted have touched on most aspects (though I don’t think the mayoral issue had much effect). The rise in the Tory vote I would ascribe largely to gentrification rather than to switches by voters who lived in the constituency in 2001.
90 - how many MPs can he swing behind a candidate? Is he now looked to by the once Portilloites?
Caption: ‘The Labour party wants voters to be like sheep — but we Conservatives…’
or (note position of left hand): ‘There’ll always be a place for you in the Party, old chap — minding the beasts’
85. ops, sorry. I was thinking about a public commitment towards one of the candidate.
83. Sophia, here’s a story for you about your “hero” and Alan Duncan
http://www.bexleyexpress.co.uk/content/bexley/express/news/story.aspx?brand=BXEOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsbxe&itemid=WeED30%20Jun%202005%2010%3A08%3A44%3A863
Duncan could take the “he is not so young anymore” comment as as offence.
“I’m sure even Alan would agree that he is not so young anymore.”
What a bizarre comment, both Derek Conway and David Davis are older than Alan Duncan.
Peter @ 84: I think you’re wrong to say that India Knight proposes that becoming pro-immigration and pro-homosexual will attract more voters; she seems to mean that a sudden gaffe in the direction of intolerance would wreck both Cameron’s and the Tories’ chances — as it very likely would. I agree with you about marriage: the idea that it’s ‘just a bit of paper’ may have made sense 40 years ago, when marriage was a sign of social respectability in some circles, but not today.
I’m sure that India Knight’s friends are not representitive of your typical swing voter. What is undeniably true though is that much of Britain (Scotland, Wales, the North of England, the Midlands etc) clearly didn’t believe we were in touch with the issues that concerned them. Its not a case of being ridicoulously politically correct and trying to woo guardian readers. Its about accepting that our message at present doesn’t appeal to enough people. Cameron appears (to me) to be more able to renew the party and to reach out beyond the core.
Am I the only person on here who has not got a clue who Indira Knight is . Is she a pop star or something ?
84.”The statistics on breakdown of marriages and cohabitations, and on how well children do in school, on likelihood of being abused, in the workplace when they grow up, on whether they enter a life of crime, and all sorts of other things all point to the benefits of marriage”
but are you comparing statistics about married couples and not married couples or statistics about married couples and divorced couples? I could take in consideration that a child is better raised by 2 parents than by a single mother, but I don’t think that a married couple are better parents than a couple who lives together, but it’s not married.
98. Me too, but I don’t count. She has a name which could be used successfully in a soap opera…..and “starring Joan Collins as Indira Knight”.
Caption competition:
Cow: “He’s probably my favourite mooderniser”
Flat cap: “Blimey, a talking cow!”
Blue cardigan: “That’s nothing. We’ve got a Tory in a tie over here.”
It’s India, not Indira. She’s one of those middlebrow Sunday supplement journalists - used to be at the Observer I think.
99 - you also have to allow for the fact that marriage may, statistically, follow the greater commitment rather than lead it. Then you would get the patterns you mentioned, but it would be wrong (post hoc ergo propter hoc) to conclude that an unmarried couple will have a more stable relationship if, without anything else changing, they choose to marry.
101.”Cow: “He’s probably my favourite mooderniser”
Flat cap: “Blimey, a talking cow!”
Blue cardigan: “That’s nothing. We’ve got a Tory in a tie over here.” ”
Cow 1: Does he want to reform the CAP?
Cow 2: Yes, he’s a tory moderniser. A Blair look alike.
Cow 1: but so “blue cardigan” will lose money and she’ll give us less to eat.
Cow 2: yeah, we shouldn’t vote for him. He’s not inclusive. He’s against cows! A cowphobic! We shall move to France.
Mike at 43. At this rate of progress the Tories will be back in office by 2052 so perhaps “wipeout was too strong. Gentle progress which might take longer than many of us have got is probably more delicate.
Re NS&B (Simon Hughes) I think there was, as some have said, a change in the voters and mostly not the voting intentions. I have heard that the seat has a 25% change in voters between each election, which much make identification at election time difficult.
Interestingly, in the South West marginal I am in, the local Lib Dems blamed a similar thing for doing not too well- that with the very high house prices, those moving to the area are either more upper class tories, or Labourites from Islington buying a holiday home- few Lib Dems can afford to move in, or are moving away. Probably a bad excuse but an interesting point.
Roger, if the next election were to see a similar swing to this one, the Conservatives would likely be the largest party.
I *know* that in your World everyone thinks the Sun comes out of TB’s/GB’s rear end, but it’s not how the rest of us think.
102 - Sorry , Thought Indira was a typo , like many of mine - LOL
106.”Labourites from Islington buying a holiday home- few Lib Dems can afford to move in, or are moving away. Probably a bad excuse but an interesting point. ”
Labour could borrow this excuse to explain their result in Islington South.
Caption Competition :
Cameron to Lady : Madam I don’t mind kissing babies but I draw the line at putting my arm up a cows arse !
Cameron: “These are our goals: a dynamic economy. A decent society. A strong self-confident nation.”
Cow: “Spot the bull.”
Re N Southwark & Bermondsey result, one other factor to bear in mind is that in 05 LD activists there were instructed to help in other seats (notably Brent E) and therefore did not run such a strong campaign as they had done in 01 (remember the 97 result was very marginal, so a lot of external effort poured into the seat for the 01 election). Similar explanation for the results in the other LD held seats in London, notably Kingston & Surbiton (activists sent to Guildford). In both cases, substantial swing back very much to be expected. LD activists tend to be more “mobile” than those of other parties - and particularly so in London, owing to good transport links & the fact that for years & years LD activists were used to travelling to Bermondsey or Richmond.
Cameron; And what do you call this one?
Blue Lady; Mrs T. She’s a Tory.
Cow; …..And pigs might fly!
112 - yes, speaking from personal experience of popping up the Jubilee line to Brent East, this is quite true.
16 - Rik, we’re even doing sleaze better than you these days. Proves we’re now a proper political party.
Cow One: “I do like Tories.”
Cow Two: “Yes, but I coudn’t eat a whole one.”
115 - honeyroom upgrade is not quite in the same league as…some former leaders of the opposition one has known?
117 - what are you referring to?
[116] has got to be the winner
112. but I suppose that Labour actvists were sent to other seats too.
IIRW, Labour targetted no seats held by an anotehr party except Adam Price’s seat.
Big Swing in your Sentiment Mr Smithson? Only a few days ago you felt an old unb rather than a young un. Purely the change of heart driven by weekend’s eventsa? On a Lib Dem Viewpoint how do you rate Cameron? You certainly rate him far more highly than David Davis at least as a Tv performer, a vitala attrributea.
120: a generalisation (so not universally true) but I’ve heard tell that Labour activists are like fine wines: by and large they don’t travel …
More seriously, LDs were defending far fewer seats in London. In 01 there was a big effort to get LDs across London to work in just 6 or 7 seats (if you include Orpington), whereas this time only 1 of the ‘held’ seats received any external help, and the ’safe’ seats like Bermondsey & Kingston actually exported help for the first time. Hence you’d expect LD majorities to go down in those seats, but they remain comfortable.
Alan Duncan would have been my first choice, but it’s important to get united behind a single candidate who isn’t David Davis if we want the latest unfathomably inevitable leader foisted upon us.
I vote for Book Value on 101.
124 - agreed!
Letwin supporting Cameron smacks to me of old school chums. This is exactly the sort of thing we need to get away from and why Rifkind, as a Scot, marks a departure from this clubby Englishness that infuses the party.
123 - Tory B - Are the Tories begining to worry that they dont have a leader that will appeal to the 75% of the population who didnt vote Tory, except for K Clarke who Tory members dont seem to like!
I think now might be the time put a few bob on KC (with Cameron as his no 2).
BTW I think the ones on the right of the picture are likely to be bullocks (will that pass the spam filter?)
Since the vast majority of the electorate is English, I am not sure how a Scots leader would be beneficial (hence Gordon Brown going on about Britishness).
Cameron; Do you ever worry about ‘Mad Cow Disease?’
Cow; Nah…. I’m a duck.
Sophia, why do so many call centres emply Scots then? People (yes, mostly English) associate a Scots accent with a cultured, reassuring and prudent person. Rifkind has this in spades. As one of the earlier posts said, we have to fight fire with fire and if Labour have Brown we need to respond in kind.
Cow One: “Looks like the Lynx Effect at work. Thought I recognised the smell from when Jack W came down here last week.”
Cow Two: “Yup - Cameron’s pulled a cracker!”
….if you’re trying to respond to Brown in kind I don’t think the Scottish accent is where I’d start. A razor sharp grasp of things ecconomic might be a starting point?
Nuala - I think you’ll find call cebtres employ Scots because it is far cheaper, both in real estate and labour to set up a call centre in Scotland than in England.
As to the leadership I am a big fan of Liam Fox, but choosing a Scot would be a disaster. There is a large groundswell of resentment towards Scotland in the South especially, and having a Scottish leader won’t help us one iota.
Nuala they generally have call centres in the cheapest areas, which Scotland, Northern Ireland and North East England generaly tend to be, hence the majority of British call centres being there and hence the movement towards call centres in India rather than in the UK.
I would be inclined to think that the majority of English people feel, if anything, there are too many Scottish MPs in parliament and particuarly in government, rather than too few.
134 - they have them in Croydon too!
“There is a large groundswell of resentment towards Scotland in the South especially” You people are so prejudiced you even have a problem with the Scots! I have noticed no such groundswell but then I dont spend my time in Conservative clubs.
You should all disband and join the BNP.
You know it makes sense.
135 - what, Scotttish people?
“what, Scotttish people” - Croydon is even more depressing than I thought…
136 - Roger - a comment like “you people” is rather sweeping and prejudiced!! I have met some very nice retired Colonels in Conservative clubs. They even let women into a few now
roger - I don’t know where you spend your time, but I guess it’s in the parallel world where the Conservatives were “wiped out” earlier this year.
There does seem to be a growing resentment towards the scottish and welsh elements governing england…..its madness that Welsh Labour Mps can vote for Id cards which may not be introduced in Wales for example…..the answer is obvious..Parliaments for England Scotland and Wales with tax varying powers …..
Roger - The people doing the most whining about Scots are Labour MP’s in the North East. Including Doug Henderson who is a Scot himself. So should he join the BNP as well. And what about all the Scots who aren’t particularly fond of the English (North and South)?
Its not prejudice to raise legimate questions. There has to be a real debate about issues like fiscal autonomy for Scotland, Wales and Ulster.
142 - Max, I thought Scots now had a (degree of) fiscal autonomy, but “choose” not to exercise it?
I apologize for my last post. But you wonder why 67% of the voters wont vote for you. As Ashcroft says “While other parties supporters had a similar profile to Britain as a whole, Conservatives did not”
Who else would care less whether or not someone was from Scotland or anywhere else for that matter?