Suddenly Ken Clarke is back in fashion again
August 10th, 2005
-
What’s behind the betting move towards the veteran campaigner?
It’s some time since we featured our chart showing prices changes in the Tory leadership race because there’s been so little movement. For weeks the implied probability based on best betting prices has David Davis at more than 55%; David Cameron on 22% and the rest of the field almost nowhere - except Ken Clarke.
For the former Tory Chancellor has seen a recovery and is not far off the peak that he reached immediately after the French Euro Referendum “NON” which many commentators saw as giving Ken a chance because it would take the EU out of the political argument.
The current market view seems to be that if the two Davids slip up then Ken Clarke could be the man. We are not convinced.
-
Whether the final decision is left in the hands of the Tory membership or Tory MPs we cannot see the former Chancellor overcoming the hostility there is towards him. Even though the EU might not be the issue it was it is still there and Clarke’s strong pro-position sets him apart from so many in his party.
The current betting price surge is probably the product of his high name recognition and the view of many outside the party, including me, who think that it is glaringly obvious that he is the right man to take on Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Much of Brown’s reputation for financial management derives from what he inherited from Ken Clarke in 1997 and what better person could the Tories have facing him across the dispatch boxes?
The Brown technique is to overwhelm opponents with streams of statistics which Clarke could handle very well.
As we have seen in the discussions on the site it is not the outside view that matters. Clarke will run and Clarke will lose again.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I don’t think many Tories believe they stand a great chance of victory in 2009, so for younger contenders their really is no reason to stand at this point in time. Remembering what happened to IDS, any leader elected now could potentially face back stabbing from his own party unless he significantly improved the parties standing within 2 years. A new leader then might be better positioned to do well in 2009 if they got the traditional honeymoon bounce. But they would still be unlikely to win, and would leave their career severaly damaged.
Ken Clarke on the other hand doesn’t have much time to wait and see any longer, and would hope to make the running from being leader sooner than the other lesser known faces.
If I was a young tory MP with leadership ambitions I would be waiting to see what the position after 2009 was before running for leadership.
Clarke could be seen by many punters as a safe marshall in the short term that would allow the party more time to prepare itself for 2013. Because even if he somehow won in 2009 he might well step down before the next election.
“As we have seen in the discussions on the site it is not the outside view that matters. Clarke will run and Clarke will lose again.”
Yes. And your graph shows quite clearly that the effect of the shortening of his odds has only been to take him from “very unlikely indeed” to “very unlikely”.
And it took place two weeks ago. Seems to me that if Our Genial Host’s York gig doesn’t work out, he’s fully qualified to get a job at “The Independent”
FYI. A post below from the previous Clarke thread. After all, if not the two David’s, then Who?
“As I posted in the previous thread when Clarke’s ambitions were mentioned resurfacing in the news, I disagree with Clarke but would be prepared to grit my teeth and support him (not, of course, that we humble activists get a say another more). Four years ago, I would have agreed with my fellow Tories and did so, backing IDS. Sadly, it seems as though Clarke is the only contender that has a realistic chance of leading us back to power. I say “sadly”, because I like a lot about DD’s principled stance against Blairite levels of tax-and-spend and ID cards; and am sure that DC will be fantastic with a bit more experience. On the two issue cited - Iraq and ID cards - I was opposed the invasion of Iraq in any case, and if Howard could be weaned away from ID cards, then I have no reason to doubt that Clarke (whose support is pretty lukewarm) would also see reason. Europe is the one jarring issue for me and, from the tone of the posts, many others, but this is a single issue and a rather dead one at that.
We could wait forever for an “ideal” candidate that combines the right policy positions with the ability to reach out to floating voters like Jack W, Ben and others. There is no candidate in the race. Clarke, or failing that, Cameron, are our best chances to form a government in the near-future.
Comment by Another Alex — 21/7/2005 @ 12:21 pm
As I posted in the previous thread when Clarke’s ambitions were mentioned resurfacing in the news, I disagree with Clarke but would be prepared to grit my teeth and support him (not, of course, that we humble activists get a say another more). Four years ago, I would have agreed with my fellow Tories and did so, backing IDS. Sadly, it seems as though Clarke is the only contender that has a realistic chance of leading us back to power. I say “sadly”, because I like a lot about DD’s principled stance against Blairite levels of tax-and-spend and ID cards; and am sure that DC will be fantastic with a bit more experience. On the two issue cited - Iraq and ID cards - I was opposed the invasion of Iraq in any case, and if Howard could be weaned away from ID cards, then I have no reason to doubt that Clarke (whose support is pretty lukewarm) would also see reason. Europe is the one jarring issue for me and, from the tone of the posts, many others, but this is a single issue and a rather dead one at that.
We could wait forever for an “ideal” candidate that combines the right policy positions with the ability to reach out to floating voters like Jack W, Ben and others. There is no candidate in the race. Clarke, or failing that, Cameron, are our best chances to form a government in the near-future.
Comment by Another Alex — 21/7/2005 @ 12:21 pm”
Off topic but does anyone here have a Racing Post today?
“If not the two David’s, then Who?”
I would say Fox should be third favourite (pace Sherlock Holmes - “After all the impossible candidates have been eliminated” etc etc.)
6. As the days go by I’m becoming more and more sure it will be Dr Fox.
7. I do hope you’re right - but I don’t think even the Tories have that much of a death-wish.
Any one you psephologists out there happen to know the proportion of votes cast for winning candidates in the GE?
9 - I make it 47.6% (excluding NI where I don’t have the figures to hand).
I’d be delighted to see Fox leading the Tories; he doesn’t come across well either on TV or in person, and the response he sparks in a lot of people is ‘untrustworthy’ or ’shifty’. He reminds me of Richard Nixon in that he comes across as smart, but not pleasant.
10 - it excluded S Staffs too. But I doubt the effect of that would be drastic.
Andy @ 7.
Whats make you think that Fox might do it? Any inside info you can supply us with?
I really think Fox has no chance. Even amongst fellow Scottish Tories I’ve spoken to he has little support. OTOH I think Ken Clarke may be in with more of a chance than people are suggesting. In the run up to the leadership contest in October we can expect a whole load of opinion polls to come out, most of which I suspect will show Ken Clarke as the most popular contender in the country. If, as I expect the MP’s have the final say this is bound to way heavily on their minds when making a decision. Those who have seats to defend and pragmatists who just want to see the party win again may decide to throw in their lot with Clarke. Whilst I prefer Cameron I would be more than happy for KC to take over in the short term. I think if he really wants it he can get it.
KC would split the Party and lave it with many less people to do the legwork. My peferred order is Fox, Cameron, Davis. As for not believing the Tories can win in 2009 - it is far far too early. After 1992 the belief was that Labour could never win - that thought didnt last long.
I don’t see him splitting the party. A fairly large minority of the membership still voted for him against one of our most Eurosceptic MP’s (IDS) and a good number of MP’s supported him as well. I disagree with KC on Europe but thats not the be all and end all of being a Tory. At the end of the day people in the party have to choose between excluding others on the grounds of ideological purity or opening up to the peole who have left us in droves who could not care less about a currency we’ll never join and a superstate that will never exist.
Thanks BV
15 - Clarke would, I think, bring in at least as many new people into the Tories’ active membership as he would drive out. Thankfully from my own point of view, the point is moot.
On your other point, remember that Labour had 80 more seats (i.e. about 40% more) in 1992 than the Tories have now, although in terms of gap in share of the vote it looks better. There is debate over whether the MPs were so uncontrollable in 1992-7 (in terms of their discipline and in the old “man of integrity in both financial and moral spheres” stakes) because they thought they were unbeatable or because they thought they were on borrowed time. I suspect the latter.
A young-ish leader would anyway surely be given a second election if he gained say 30-50 seats from all other parties and at least halved the Labour majority wouldn’t he?
MAx AT 14 & 16 read the post at 4. Your Views?
Much of Brown’s reputation for financial management derives from what he inherited from Ken Clarke in 1997
Well, it’s good to see someone realise that the current economic boom began before Brown. But it also began before Clarke entered No. 11.
18. I really wouldn’t count on it. Hung Parliament, minimum accptable target for next Leader.
What counts against Clarke’s chances, IMO, is the new intake of 54 MPs. I can think of very very few of them who will support Clarke (Anne Milton, Nick Hurd, and maybe Malcolm Rifkind), whereas quite a large number have declared their support for Davis, Fox, and Cameron.
Clarke ended up with about 36% of the MPs in 2001; I expect that percentage would be less this time.
19 - I broadly agree. If we don’t have an ideal candidate we should go for the closest to it and not wait for someone who may never turn up.
I think having to achieve a hung parliament is a little unfair. If the majority was further reduced and, equally importantly, a significant number of seats were gained from the LD’s I reckon most people would settle for that.
Liam Fox as Tory Party leader = Labour and Lib Dems gains at the 2009 GE . I can’t believe the Tories would commit such electoral madness 4 times on the bounce …. would they ?!?! Even allowing for policy issues he has the presence of decay and shiftiness about him that will be open to constant media ridicule .
Yeah, if Liam Fox wins, Charles Kennedy will ride a unicorn into Downing Street as gold and silver raindrops fall from the sky. Richmond and Kensington & Chelsea will become Labour strongholds without them needing to do any campaigning. Margaret Thatcher will express sorrow that she, and not Michael Foot, won in 1983. Hardened europhile campaigning from Sun and Daily Mail readers will revive the EU Constitution across the continent, and Britain will enter the Euro and welcome 3 million new asylum seekers without a hint of protest.
Whoops - far-left.
26 - You don’t have to be left wing to think that Liam Fox isn’t the man for the job. I would implore Tories on this site to go out and speak to friends/family /colleagues who do not presently vote Conservative and ask them who they would choose as leader. I’m fairly certain that a majority would choose KC over Liam Fox and/or David Davis.
You don’t have to be left wing to think that Liam Fox isn’t the man for the job.
Yes, but the commenters above spouting absurd fantasies about Liam Fox - usually entirely without any supporting reasoning - are clearly left-wing Guardianistas who apparently cannot see that a Tory leader with great appeal to floating voters may still have ideas and attitudes they find repulsive (eg. Margaret Thatcher). They can’t even see a contradiction in their hating the Conservative Party so much they want it to pick a terrible leader and their complaints about Liam Fox because he isn’t their kind of man.
Peter - which Party was it that had a conference resolution calling for a Laura Norder policy that would allow “a virgin* to ride unmolested through the kingdom carrying a bag of gold”? [Clue: it wasn’t the Lib Dems, Veritas or Respect] To be fair to the managers of the said party, it wasn’t called for debate.
*I can’t remember what she was supposed to wear - care to help us out, Jack W?
Since the conference agendas should be coming out soom, perhaps we could have a comp for this year’s loopiest motion???
I would implore Tories on this site to go out and speak to friends/family /colleagues who do not presently vote Conservative and ask them who they would choose as leader. I’m fairly certain that a majority would choose KC over Liam Fox and/or David Davis.
If they’re like most families, that’s because they know who Kenneth Clarke is but don’t know Davis or Fox. That would change as soon as Davis or Fox became leader of the opposition. This temporary name recognition factor should not be confused with Clarke’s natural popularity among left-wing commenters here, who can’t help but like a man who almost never appears in the press except to attack the Tory Party and the euroscepticism they loathe.
Max - my one real concern over KC from your point of view (and feel free to ignore me as a Lib Dem) is that although I agree he is the most attractive character among contenders you also need to decide who is best to take the party forward. I remember in the 2001 leadership context that IDS wiped the floor with him (incredible, but true) in the Newsnight leadership debate. KC was forever rattling on about what he did back in 1985 and he looked completely like yesterday’s man (albeit a likeable old buffer). He doesn’t really give the impression of having given the whole political landscape any serious thought since clearing his desk back in 1997.
Mind you, I find it hard not to conclude that even with that major drawback there is more to be said for him than the others. Perhaps Nuala is right and you need the calming voice of Malcolm R to resonate once more in the halls of power.
29 - I don’t know what you’re talking about. Even if it is “loopy” to express concerns about muggings and rape in eccentric, arcane language, what does that have to do with anything that has been discussed? I didn’t say any political party was loopy. I said it was loopy for certain commenters here to believe that the election of Liam Fox will fulfill the far-fetched anti-Tory fantasies we see sketched out above.
32 - I’m not sure which “far-fetched” comments you are talking about above. The furthest anyone has gone is Jack W’s “Liam Fox as Tory Party leader = Labour and Lib Dems gains at the 2009 GE” which given this only means Labour and the Lib Dems gaining back some seats they held as recently as April is hardly far-fetched.
The truth is, Peter, that of possible Tory leaders Lib Dem and Labour activists would genuinely like to see in place the names most likely to come up are Fox and Redwood. Either of that pair might surprise us all with their brilliance in office from November, but it is hardly fantasy to doubt it.
I’d like Ken Clarke but Foxy would be pretty close. None of them really scares me the way Portillo would have in 2001 though.
I’m not sure which “far-fetched” comments you are talking about above. The furthest anyone has gone is Jack W’s “Liam Fox as Tory Party leader = Labour and Lib Dems gains at the 2009 GE”
That’s if you ignore “death wish” “electoral madness” “constant media ridicule” etc. The commenters are essentially saying that if Liam Fox is elected in November, then conservatism is going to go away - there will be two-party politics between two left of centre parties, without any effort to justify such extreme predictions. It’s ridiculous.
The truth is, Peter, that of possible Tory leaders Lib Dem and Labour activists would genuinely like to see in place the names most likely to come up are Fox and Redwood.
There seems an implicit assumption here the worst people to judge who will be a good Tory leader are Conservative activists and the very best people to judge the question are Labour and Lib Dem activists. I don’t agree. I’ll happily concede that party activists represent different sections of society from the ordinary voter, but this applies as much to Labour and (especially!) the Lib Dems as the Conservatives. And at least the latter have all the particular insider knowledge that comes from being in a party.
35 - there will be two-party politics between two left of centre parties
Which two parties are these? I don’t see anything particularly left wing about New Labour; Jack’s comment about Labour being a good conservative government is aposite. As to the Lib Dems, they may have been characterised as such during the election but the party most certainly is not “left of centre”.
37. But although he tried to wriggle Lord Rennard said on the Radio Left of Center implicitly Conceding that was where the Lib Dems were was not such a bad place to be as that was where the majority of the public were he claimed.
Yes, if one is a political activist, it is very hard to judge another party’s leadership election objectively. One will tend to favour the candidate whose views are most in accord with one’s own.
The Conservatives need to select a leader on the basis of who will be most appealing to centre right voters generally, both those who vote Conservative, and, crucially, those who don’t (which would include UKIP voters, and probably a fair-sized minority of Labour and Lib Dem voters).
What we shouldn’t do is choose somebody who appeals strongly to people who wouldn’t vote Conservative if you paid them.
35 - I don’t think anyone says “conservatism is going to go away” but nor did liberalism go away when the Liberal Party went into a long period of decline in the twentieth century. What happens is that other parties devour those parts which are agreeable to them while you are busy talking amongst yourselves, and from there it is a very, very long way back.
I am not saying it will happen in 2009/10 - there is a long way to go. But an assumption appears to have set in among some Conservatives that their current vote share is definitely as bad as it’s ever going to get. They conclude that you might as well go for the leadership candidate who floats your own personal boat rather than the one most likely to appeal to soft Lib Dem and Labour voters.
You guys should check out Ken’s outside interests (see eg http://daviddavisleader.blogspot.com/2005/08/outside-interests.html).
Apart from the BATs vice chairmanship, and various other conflicted non-exec posts, he’s a participant in the shadowy Bilderberg Group, variously described as a front for the Illuminati, and the ultimate insider boonie for those who’ve tried everything else.
You gotta love him- he’s the original [************] moderated MS
23. Only 34 Conservatibe gains are needed from Labour assuming no losses for a Hung Parliament. That is really not a lot in Election General Terms. A hung parliament is therefore i would imagine the minumum the party would expect from it’s New Leader In terms of performancess.
The Conservatives need to select a leader on the basis of who will be most appealing to centre right voters generally, both those who vote Conservative, and, crucially, those who don’t (which would include UKIP voters, and probably a fair-sized minority of Labour and Lib Dem voters).
What we shouldn’t do is choose somebody who appeals strongly to people who wouldn’t vote Conservative if you paid them.
Here, here. What frustrates me is the commenters here who pontificate most on this issue as if they are the greatest authority are invariably the sorts who wouldn’t vote Conservative if you paid them. They don’t distinguish between their category and the former category of voter, and they don’t recognise that their strong partisan bias against the Conservatives makes them no more objective in judging who will win over the voters who decide elections than the those with a strong partisan bias for the Conservatives.
41. You are evidently a brave man. I hope for your sake KC’s Lawyers don’t read that, just in case! Anyway sounds like you got to get back to reading the Da Vinci Code.
Peter @ 36
“There seems an implicit assumption here the worst people to judge who will be a good Tory leader are Conservative activists”
It hardly seems necessary to pont out that it was Conservative activists that choose IDS
Sorry, that should be http://daviddavisleader.blogspot.com/2005/08/outside-interests.html
Sean [39] - I’d vote Conservative if you paid me enough but presumably you are trying to regain a reputation for economic competence
I imagine that both Davis and Cameron would argue that no one would defect if they became leader “and you can’t say that about all the candidates, y’know.”
39 - I would agree with that Sean and perhaps with Clarke/Davis you get one who attracts UKIP voters and one who would attract back LIB’Labs. Perhaps the problem is that neither would attract both. This perhaps opens up the path for a Cameron or a Rifkind. As I say theirs a long way to go before we see how things pan out.
41 - Illuminati? Good to hear Davis has won the backing of David Icke then. Ronson’s “Them” book is interesting on the Bilderberg Group - basically a fairly dull club for high achievers throughout the political spectrum (e.g. Denis Healy) which nutters obsess about.
45 - And Labour activists chose Michael Foot. Lib Dem activists chose Charles Kennedy. What’s your point?
In the interests of Balance can anyone inform us of David Davis’s outside interests? Specifically who was footing the bill for the Helicopter he was apparently jetting around the Gneral Election Campaign in? Wat can you help us?
50 - “And Labour activists chose Michael Foot.”
No; the PLP did.
I don’t think Labour activists are allowed to choose anything. LDs did indeed choose CK but I think most reasonable people would conclude he is a rather better leader than IDS. Tory MPs certainly drew that conclusion…. so the point is the one that Tory MPs keep making that Tory members are particularly bad at picking leaders.
50 - If your comments on Foot and Kennedy are right (and actually BV is right that MPs chose Foot and a lot of us would disagree that Kennedy was a poor choice) doesn’t this prove Bullseye’s point rather than refute it? His point was that activists have a patchy record at best of making a wise choice.
I think only Conservatives would vote Conservative if you paid them (or Labour or Lib/Dem for that matter). It’s not that Conservatives are any less scrupulous than anyone else just that their spirit of entrepreneurialism goes deeper!
Peter,
I think you are quite wrong, my view as a former LibDem PPC, my view is certainly not that the Tories have to appel to people like me but to the 10% of the electorate who abandoned the party over the black Wednesday fiasco. These electors voted for Blair in 97 & 01 and split between Labour & the LibDems in 2005.
The problem with Fox is that he has never shown any inkling at all of having any idea how to win them over, s well as being a fairly weak media/Commons performer. Davis who I dislike, could potentially have a George Bushesque quality _ I’ve always thought he comes across as a real human being (albeit a rather too thigish one for my tastes) and as such could make a breakthrough. Cameron on the other hand is I think a good Commons performer, undertsands the Tories problem but the more I see of him on TV the less I think he has that extra spark the Tories need to break out of their 30-33% box
To be fair, Tory activists only chose IDS when presented with a choice between him and Ken Clarke. I suspect had Portillo (or even Davis or Ancram) been an option IDS wouldn’t have stood a chance. I think any of these three would have been a better leader than IDS.
23 - a reduced Labour majority would not be an achievement at all, nor would it be acceptable. To me, at least.
Even in this year’s election, their majority was reduced by 100. A similar swing next time, and we have a hung parliament, with Labour short by 30-something seats.
Boundary changes will also wipe out a few more seats. If the 2005 election was fought on the same boundaries as the next election will be, the majority would’ve been less than it is now - probably in the region of 40-48 seats.
This notional majority *should* be eroded during the current parliament, not least through by-election losses to the LibDems, but hopefully a handful to us as well.
At the time of the next election, we can reasonably expect Labour to have a notional majority of 30-40, which will not require too much effort to overturn.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a massive task for the Tories to form a government from their current base, and given the number of Lib Dems, Labour can afford to lose a lot of seats and still be the largest party in a hung parliament, but their grip on overall control is weakened, and weakening further in a changing political climate.
Peter @ 50
My pont is the same as he Tory MPs who have just taken away the voting rights o fthe activists - that the Tory rank & file are likely to choose someone who appeals to them not the ider electorate.
Incidentally Michael Foot ws elected in 1980 by the PLP not the Labour activists & Charles Kennedy hads seen the party’s vote & MPs go up 2 elections in a row. Whats your point?
51- Must admit I don’t know anything about DD’s chopper. And I’m not altogether sure that I want to find out.
But I thought critics were mainly concerned that he DIDN’T fly around during the Election, spending all his time in his constituency. Unless that is, he was choppering between Beverley and Cottingham.
As for his outside interests, he’s been very careful to avoid any conflicts. As the recent Guardian profile noted: “Unlike other MPs, Davis had not only refused company directorships and hospitality to avoid conflicts of interest, but had even wanted to return two tickets on Concorde won in a charity raffle in fear of compromising himself.” (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1525792,00.html )
So the interests he records in the register comprise just donations to his constituency party (see http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/david_davis/haltemprice_and_howden )
“so the point is the one that Tory MPs keep making that Tory members are particularly bad at picking leaders. ”
Well, we keep coming back to this, but it was the MPs who shortlisted two MPs at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. By voting for IDS, the party membership voted to prevent the party splitting on ideological lines.
It certainly wasn’t the case that the party membership plucked IDS out of nowhere and foisted him on the MPs.
Sorry, yes - the electoral college system was introduced during Michael Foot’s reign, but it’s true it isn’t how he was chosen as leader.
If your comments on Foot and Kennedy are right (and actually BV is right that MPs chose Foot and a lot of us would disagree that Kennedy was a poor choice) doesn’t this prove Bullseye’s point rather than refute it? His point was that activists have a patchy record at best of making a wise choice.
Well, if that was his point, he should have read and quoted my whole sentence. My point was that it’s silly to assume Tory activists have the worst judgement when choosing their own leader and Labour and Lib Dems have the best when choosing the Tory leader, so if this was his point (activists from all parties have poor judgement) it doesn’t refute mine at all.
My pont is the same as he Tory MPs who have just taken away the voting rights o fthe activists - that the Tory rank & file are likely to choose someone who appeals to them not the ider electorate.
But what evidence do you have that this is truer of Tory activists than activists from other parties?
28 et al Peter . I’ve been called many things on the site but “left wing Guardianista” is the one I cherish most !! I await “Veritas fellow traveller” to aclaim a full set and my prize - that weighty tome “The Wit and Wisdom of Liam Fox”
May I say candidly that only the prospect of the member for Vulcan West and Wokingham being Conservative Leader would come before the Media and the Labour and Liberal Democrats wetting themselves in anticipation at the prospect of the good Dr Fox ascending the blue throne .
The harsh reality for the Tories is that it’s not the core vote that is the problem . It’s the millions , like moi , who have drifted away to TB’s conservative NuLabour or to the Lib Dems or who abstain by device or indifference that the Tories must recapture . They will not return to a Conservative party led from the right wing of that party in this changed political age .
29 Innocent Abroad . “…. I can’t remember what she was suppossed to wear - care to help us out , Jack W? ”
My pleasure ….. book value look away now !!
http://www.iwbeagles.co.uk/lady_godiva.jpg
“My pont is the same as he Tory MPs who have just taken away the voting rights o fthe activists”
That depends on the outcome of the conventiion on 27th September. I would not be at all surprised if one third or more of convention members were to block this move.
Bullseye @ 56 - Good post, for recognising that hardened anti-Tory people like yourselves are not the ones the next leader needs to win over, and for providing reasons for your scepticism of Fox and preference for Davis or Cameron. I don’t object to this sort of post at all, and it wasn’t you I was ridiculing above. What I ridicule are these posts that basically follow a standard “I am a left-wing activist and I don’t like x one bit. Therefore the ordinary floating voter will not like x one bit. Therefore if x is elected leader the Tories will be relegated to the status of third party.”
It would be interesting if a pollster could actually conduct an extensive survey showing not so much who would be the most popular Tory leader among the electorate as a whole, but who would be the most popular among which type of voter - particularly among those who consider themselves broadly right wing - but who don’t currently vote Conservative.
Well, we keep coming back to this, but it was the MPs who shortlisted two MPs at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. By voting for IDS, the party membership voted to prevent the party splitting on ideological lines.
It certainly wasn’t the case that the party membership plucked IDS out of nowhere and foisted him on the MPs.
Quite. The members made the right choice given the options available. If MPs were right to replace IDS with Michael Howard, that hardly changes this. Michael Howard wasn’t even a candidate in 2001.
Ken Clarke is a polished performer, good fun, etc etc, but as has been mentioned before, not only was he Chancellor for Major, but he held some fairly highly charged jobs under Thatcher. Some of the pubic sector voters lost by the Tories will no doubt remember his charm offensive [sic] against the Teachers when he was Education Secretary, and if they don’t I’m sure No 10 would remind them.
Perhaps the Tories should consider David Blunkett as their next leader?
69 -:oops: that sticky letter ‘l’ …
Tabman, on what you said before - are you saying you believe all three main parties are to the right of the median voter? How can you justify this view?
71 - no, what I said was that NuLab and the Lib Dems were not “left of centre” parties, which is not the same thing. To justify my view take a look at this.
71 Peter . The most recent polling (whose I’m not sure) showed that that TB and the Labour party were considered to be the “median” by most voters , with the Lib Dems just to the left of TB and the Conservative quite some way to the right of the “median” . There lies the Conservatives main problem .
Jack, I’ve seen a lot of analysis of this subject done and discussed by the country’s top political academics at Essex University. None of them demurred from the conclusion that the Tories’ policies were not the problem, and were not out of step from voters’ preferences, or overly conservative. Quite contrary to you, Prof. Tom Quinn has said the Tories problem is that whereas Labour in the 1980s clearly had policies right out of step with the British public, the Tories do not - so what they need to change about themselves in order to win again is much harder for them to discover.
Tabman, surely whether a party is right- or left-wing in the judgement of voters matters more than whether it is classified as right- or left-wing in a palpably biased quiz on a socialist web site? If you are taking their quiz as the authority, the median voter must be centre-right.
Peter, apropos of nothing, I found a little piece on some blog the other day, railing about people who go fox-hunting. It went something like this:
The cowardice is obvious from the description above. Never are the attackers matched in numbers. Never do they stick to men. They seem to prefer greatly to attack, while on horseback, those in a sedentary position.
More contemptible still, however, is the sheer joy expressed in the animal-like noises one hears. These aren’t braindead thugs setting out to prove themselves to their tribe in a way they find indifferent or unpleasant. They are actually loving it - deeply excited, genuinely laughing. Countless prison sentences have been lenient only because old Etonian liberals in our judiciary cannot comprehend this motivation. Many a Home Secretary has pushed through Acts of Parliament introducing and extending parole and granting early release on tagging and for ‘good behaviour’ which they wouldn’t have pushed through if they understood this about crime. Academics all over the world have devoted careers to unravelling the riddle of why some behave in this way, unable to believe the obvious: that for them it is fun.
This ivory tower innocence about human nature has combined with an empirically baseless chattering class prejudice against prisons, and stubborn indifference to the consequences to the innocent of leaving criminals free to terrorise and hurt. Adding the prejudice of this numerically tiny sect to the uncomprehending ignorance of criminals’ nature has ensured a situation where never before has so much suffering been inflicted on so many by the sheer, unmalicious folly of so few.
Test - socialist
74 Peter . In which case the Tories problem is far worse !! The voters apparently love Conservative policies but hate the Conservatives !! Heck that takes some doing and more importantly some fixing , especially as the fixer required presently sits in 10 Downing Street.
In which case the Tories problem is far worse !! The voters apparently love Conservative policies but hate the Conservatives !! Heck that takes some doing and more importantly some fixing
Yes, that’s what Prof. Quinn said (though in slightly more academic language :)).
77,78 - Which is why NuLab are in power - Old fashioned tory policies with a camera friendly leader you can feel good about voting for…
‘…so what they need to change about themselves in order to win again is much harder for them to discover.’
I usually actively try and avoid sounding like a nihilist but perhaps there is no answer at all, if the Conservative brand is so badly damaged then the party will have to wait until Labour is widely despised and the Liberal Democrats are uncovered as the shameless harlots of the political sphere.
77 Peter . And Liam Fox is the answer ?! and why ?!
76 Tabman . I notice that the Lib Dems have now dropped from 80/1 to 66/1 to be the largest party at the next GE !! Have you been raiding the coffers in Tabman Towers ?!
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/0/6/3/10634/10634-h/052.png
72 - Tabman - I’ve seen this site before (but thank you for bringing it up again). I’m fairly happy with where it puts me (bottom right) but a bit suspicious of where it puts the various parties, as this seems to be based purely on guesswork. I’ve been trying to dig out a similar site I found a few months back, which also plotted you on a two-dimensional axis, and then compared you to everyone else who’d taken the test. It also asked you what party you most closely identified with, what newspaper you read, where you lived, etc, and allowed you to compare yourself to those groups. Sadly, I can’t find it now, BUT, where all this was leading was that it culminated with a plot of red, yellow and blue dots on a scattergraph - and what was interesting was that the identifictaion with parties had only a hazy correlation with the political opinions expressed.
Which goes back to the other point - the Conservatives’ main problem is that there aren’t enough people prepared to vote for them, regardless of policies.
77 If Skoda can be the car this year regarded as the style marker, what’s not possible?
80 Jon W . “… and the Liberal Democrats are uncovered as the shameless harlots of the political sphere .”
Tabman , book value and bullseye - shameless harlots . I never knew they were so interesting , especially after dark :
http://www.ffbooks.co.uk/images/n7/n36435.jpg
83 Blue2win . Yes but Skoda were taken over by the VW/Audi group . Are you hoping to be rescued by Veritas !!!
85 Stop and think a minute Jack. Put auto-deride on hold. We need a new leader, true. But the remarkable thing about Skoda, is the knowledge of the ownership is not the key change agent. It is part of it for sure. The key is the look and quality of the product. And its reliability on the road. And the reliability of being ‘good’ as a brand.
What damaged us was the ERM, not because of the cost or interest rate per se but because of what these said to the average voter about the Tories after Thatcher. We did not stick to the script, did not deliver on the expectation and we didn’t seem care what the cost was to Joe Public.
Peter @78, I think Sean Gabb may be close to the mark when he argues that throughout the twentieth century, the Conservative Party has implied more than it has promised, and promised more than it has delivered, to its supporters.
Quite a lot of people who approve of what the Conservatives have to say on issues like the EU, or crime, or immigration, are highly sceptical that they will deliver what they promise .
There’s some truth in that, but I think web libertarians are far too prone to a shrill nihilism. I’ve heard Gabb talk about “betrayal after betrayal” as a consistent pattern from Conservatives for generations, as if he really thinks that is a fair description of the Thatcher government. I’ve no interest in entering that sort of impossible-to-please territory.
74 & 77-Time for a reality check.
Please advise:
1) Which post war opposition party has won an election when the economy (appears) to be in good shape ?
2) Which post war government has lost an election when the economy (appears) to be in good shape ?
72-Agree that New Labour is no longer left of centre having embraced most of Thatchers policies and as recently confirmed by Tony Benn when he mentioned that Ted Heath’s government had been much more to the left than Blair’s.
Am not sure if the Liberals in an attempt to differentiate themselves have deliberatly moved to the left,but seem to be much closer to the Wilson / Callaghan old Labour left.
86 Blue2win . Don’t disagree with that . However how do the Tories recover as the party of economic competence in opposition . More so as the voters have heard predictions of doom and gloom from the Tories from day 1 of the Labour government and it hasn’t happened . And then if it does happen who will the voters trust to put it right ; presently it’s GB !! - ” he got us in he can get us out .”
I’m sorry to seem like a bearer of doom and gloom for the Tories , but the problems you face are deep rooted , and to hear some Tories you’d think “one more heave” would do it . It will not .
I want an effective , vibrant opposition and alternative government in waiting . I’m still waiting , hoping ……. will prayer help ?!!?
I agree, it’s most unlikely that Sean Gabb could ever be satisfied by anything we did in office. That said, I think that with the exception of the Thatcher government, it’s hard to think of any twentieth century Conservative government that made the weather intellectually, and pushed society in a direction that Conservatives would welcome. The more typical attitude of Conservative politicians has been to manage decline - “apres moi le deluge.”
91-It’s precisely what Labour faced during their 18 years in opposition with the same sort of stories of ‘doom & gloom’,with an even worse record of economic incompetence if you go back to the Wilson / Callaghan years.
91 - but Jack - if the Conservatives problems are deep rooted (i.e. people just don’t like or trust the Conservative Party) and changing policies isn’t the answer, then what can they do to turn themselves into this government in waiting?
The doom and gloom should not be exaggerated. After 1997, we needed an 11% swing from Labour to win an overall majority. Once the new boundary changes are implemented, we’ll need a swing of about 5.5% (similar to 1970 and 1979).
That said, I’m inclined to believe in two more heaves rather than one more heave.
I don’t know if anyone knows Kieron O’Hara, ‘Senior Research Fellow at the University of Southampton’; I certainly didn’t. He has written a book, published this year before the GE (in about Jan I guess: he refers to Letwin as most likely successor to Howard). I found it rather turgid, as it mostly concerns philosophy rather than politics; but I mention it because he states as an axiom that “Blair has moved the political centre leftwards” (sorry, can’t find the reference to verify the quote, but I promise any error is trivial). This seems remarkable. Does anyone know another pundit who thinks a) that the political centre has moved left and b) that Blair has done it?
The book also suffers from that common fault, a tendency to regard members of your own team — I’m sorry, I mean party — as real people, though possibly misguided, wrong or mad; but members of other parties as aliens who lack human emotions or motivations and are therefore discussed as abstractions or (though not by Mr O”Hara) evil geniuses. I think there is a lesson for some posters here.
94 Cookie . If I knew the answer I wouldn’t be Liam Fox’s Spin Doctor !! . The answer is P & P . Personality and Policy …… Now get those two right and the Consevatives are at the races and not at the dogs . The quetion is who and what . The who for me of the candidates available is Ken Clarke and the what is joining the rest of us in the 21st century .
95 Sean . But the Liberal Democrats remain a big obstacle , as I’ve said before - “the blocking minority”. They really are a problem that the Tories have yet to deal with to regain power.
There is still the Conservative nightmare scenario that the convention fails to carry the proposal to change the leadership election procedure by just 1 or 2 votes leaving everything in a shambles and lots of unhappy MPs .
98 Mark . I detect an element of wishful thinking there Mark .
Now your homework is to present the Conservative dream scenario !
63
IDS
99 - Cannot deny that that would be fun to see . LOL
Conservative dream scenario is that at the last moment , they produce a Margaret Thatcher clone , saying that the scientists had been working on this in secret for 15 years paid for privately by Mrs T from her US lecture tour payments . Down to the handbag you cannot tell the difference .
“And Labour activists chose Michael Foot”
Need we say more?
101 Mark . The Iron Lady turns into The China Lady !!!!
http://www.rhmcollectables.co.uk/Mrs_Thatcher_Blue.jpg
103 - Jack , Yes I have seen 1 or 2 at Car Boot Fairs noone seems to want to buy them bit like the Conservative Party as a whole
104 Mark . Meeoowww . Lots of saucers of milk drunk these past few days.
91 - I do agree here , Jack , forecasts of doom and gloom and economic disasters are counterproductive when they do not happen and too many Conservative posters on here still keep trying to say that disaster is round the next cornere.
It is possible to criticise some aspects of management of the economy without saying that as chicken lickin said the sky is falling in
101. Alternative dream scenario - Conservatives invent a time machine, go back to the late 1970’s and intervene to ensure that Tony Blair and Cherie Booth go to different barristers’ chambers for their pupillages. Tony finds a good Tory wife and is elected MP for Beaconsfield in a 1982 by-election. His rise through the ministerial ranks is swift, and after the defenestration of the blessed Margaret in 1990 he is being talked of as a possible PM, despite his youth. After squaring things with eminence grise John Major at the latter’s favourite restaurant (a Little Chef just off the A10), and gaining the impramatur of the deposed leaderene, Blair trounces Heseltine and Hurd in the Tory leadership election. We all wake up tomorrow to find that the Tories have been in power for 26 years, with no end in sight.
104 Mark . The early mornings at Brighton car boots begin to take their toll on Mark !
http://www.bridgend-events.co.uk/images/carboot.jpg
107 Lorcan . But would we notice the difference !
Sean - 67 - “particularly among those who consider themselves broadly right wing - but who don’t currently vote Conservative.” That sums me up to a tee,the way Labour is carrying on at the present especially in regard to the muslim/immigration issue means my vote could be up for grabs - from what I’ve seen re the Tory candidates David Davis appears to be the best.
69 - Needless to say, Blunkett would be considered far too right-wing by most of us ;).
Many thanks to Conspirator for re-posting my comment on the previous Clarke thread (not once but twice :)). The point is that, at risk of repeating myself, it is questionable who, other than Clarke, can reach out to that 10% of centre/slightly-right-of-centre voters like Jack W who defecting to NuLab and seem to have no signs of coming back again. It seems bizarre that such floating voters have repeatedly said that they might like Clarke, but KC’s detractors are saying quite the reverse…Jack W certainly seems a man to know his own mind!
The real question that I would pose to Clarke’s antagonists is what is really wrong with the man. Europe is far less of an issue now than it was in 2001, or indeed at any time since the Maastrict Treaty. His age is perhaps a concern, but he could perfectly plausibly serve as a one-time PM. Other than that, I can’t really fathom any major objections that most Conservatives would have to him. He may not be ideologically ideal, but he’s hardly an apostate, and he remains the Tories’ best chance to regain power.
Sean’s definition at 67 is too broad. I am “right-wing”, despair of the Tory Party but did vote Con in ‘05, though more because of the candidate and the local situation than for the party. I keep asking myself, why should a teacher with a family and a mortgage he can’t afford vote Tory rather than NuLab? Perhaps DD, DC, KC, MR, TM, AL or LF could explain?
109. My point exactly, Jack! The partisan, tribalist Conservatives don’t know how lucky they are (unless their minds are only fixed on pelf and place).
111&112 - Those are the questions the party should be asking itself. People are concerned with affordable housing, pensions, work/life balance, crime. They are not concerned with Europe or multiculturalism on a day to day basis. The party needs to deal with these real life issues rather than talking to ourselves about issues most people aren’t concerned about.
111 Another Alex . I’m not blind to the problems that come with Ken as leader . Neither do I think he will lead the Tories to the promised land . However he’ll put the Tories back in the game and send a shiver down the spines of both Labour and the Lib Dems. But frankly he’s also by far the best candidate of a distinctly average bunch of second rate performers whose only other qualities seem to be that they are not Hague , IDS or Howard . It’s not inspiring ! But inspiration is too much to ask from the Tories at this stage , I’ll settle for persperation from the Labour and the Lib Dems as they begin to glow a little from a fusilade of Ken’s cigar smoke and fedora thinking !
Jack W if your thesis “it’s GB !! - he got us in he can get us out ” is feasible then the us Tories are in with a stonking chance in GE2001 as we got into the ERM mess with such elan the electorate must be sitting back with confidence while we get them out of the mess we made.
Well, no. History proves it didn’t happen and demonstrates the fallacy.
Economic competence is only real as long as most people have a positive feel good factor. And that has lasted some time with a third of the fifty financial quarters of positive economic news that Gordon Brown talks about coming from Conservative government.
So why don’t people trust the Tories. Because the popular memory has it that we said one thing in January 1992 and another in September 1992. Whether it is true or not matters only as much as that is the barrier we need to cross. All governments have some small U turns but that was a biggie and a cockup to boot.
Ps You are an old fraud. You are enjoying every minute of the gloom and doom you can send the Tories way. You really must be the Lord Kinnock.
97 Jack W Its quite a laugh for you, a renowned Jacobite who believes the Queen should be removed to Hanover to say the Tories should be joining the rest of us in the 21st century .
It is a sad reflection on the current state of the Conservative party that the only occasion in recent memory when our esteemed host has felt the need to moderate a post was when David Davis’s foremost cheerleader in the blogosphere was attacking a supporter of Ken Clarke.
Further to my post last week about Aswat.
Remember Haroon Rashid Aswat who was named as the suspect mastermind behind the 7/7 attacks, close associate of Abu Hamza and named as being trained by our own securirty services. Yes, trained and funded by MI6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haroon_Rashid_Aswat
Also contains further links
http://www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=39&ArticleID=1101334
Don’t you find it rather odd that Aswat is now on charges to be deported to US, who have wanted him for years, but Scotland Yard detectives aren’t interested in speaking to him about the London Bombings?
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13913208
As Robin Cook said Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA. Al-Qaeda being behind 9/11.
Why does it now look like those behind 7/7 were funded and protected by MI6?
Is this is a conspiracy theory? If so which bit is wrong?
Odd that there have been almost no comments on the shambolic government behaviour in the last two weeks. It is not entirely off topic because if they continue as they are doing the new Tory leader will have an open goal.
Its all rather like a fairytale. Or is it a pantomime.
Not only are the adults away they have made the error of leaving the C team in charge ( C for calamity not children). First Buf behaves as if he is in charge of the terrorism situation but then is squashed by Hazy Blears who rushes off north of the Watford gap. And while she is busy looking to bring back treason David Blunkett announces he is in charge of the Home Office anyway (implying that he always has been so Charles The Unfortunate is unlikely to be missed?). Number Ten pulls the rug from DB and ‘Fighting John’ Prescott lets us know he is in charge of everything really but he is not sure what to do about it, and so resorts to practising his tourism skills and telling us that houses cost too much. Real news then?
Meanwhile the Lord Chancer strides onto the scene only to confuse the issue more and to leave the impression that he is so entwined in his own legal niceties he cannot give a straight answer to a straight question about keeping nasty non-citizens out of the country. He is likely to end up with a serious auto-proctological problem if he isn’t given real help soon.
And to top it off when faced with criticism of the all day drinking laws the Department of Culture (there’s a laugh) said “The alcohol-related crime and disorder blighting our town and city centres is happening now, under the current regime. That is why the laws need to be reformed to tackle head-on drink-fuelled violence.” So we stop it by making it easier to get piss-ed?
Our lives are in their hands.
But as ‘Fighting John’ said himself in another era “Here we have a government disintegrating between our eyes”.
Well, the answer to the question posed in Mike’s subtitle seems to be contained in this Guardian piece: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1546787,00.html - Kenneth Clarke may be willing to drop his support for the euro in order to win.
I would suggest that people are confusing “brand” with policies. One of the reasons I think Conservatives are taking so long to realize they are in their death throes is that they misunderstand the ‘when’ and the ‘how’of their fatal wound.
I believe it was ‘84 and not ‘92. It was Thatcherism’s ruthlessness that killed the brand. Majors incompetence just removed any lingering doubt. By ‘93 the public would have escaped their ‘Scoda’ in a ‘Trabant’if it had been the only thing available.
How will the Tories recover?…..with great difficulty. Scoda underwent a massive rebranding excercise. But as Jack said it’s selling point is that it’s not a Scoda anymore but a VW which costs less. But there are still too many people who wouldn’t touch one with a bargepole.
I tend to agree with Roger. It was Thatcher who destroyed the Tory Party, although it survived throughout the 80s, thanks to a corrupt voting system and a divided opposition.
But was it just her ruthlessness and vindictiveness? It seems to me now - as it did at the time - that she was singularly incompetent into the bargain, and certainly had no vision of a long-term political strategy. Consequently she rushed in and alienated many of those who ought to have been natural Tory supporters. And until now, they have not come back.
123 = John13, if the Tories are indeed “doing a Liberals”, where are they on the 1910 - 1930 scale at the moment?
116/117 Blue2win . I think the election of 1992 is a better example . The voters had already fallen out of love with the Tories but were not quite ready to offer their favours to Labour - I know I was one . By 97 the combination of too many economic highs and lows , sleaze , broken tax promises and the air of decay and disunity that hung over the Tories coupled with a credible alternative government led to the Tory disaster of 97 .
You’re quite correct about me enjoying the present predicament of the Tories , but my pleasure is not idealogically based !! I enjoy all difficulties of all the parties - I’m utterly unscrupulous and cannot be trusted to give any party the benefit of the doubt . But then I’m a normal(ish) voter and it’s important that the uncomitted voters treat you all with equal contempt , so as to keep you all on your toes !! As for me being Lord Kinnock as he says :
“The propensity for clarification on this matter of indigenous identification is not open for questionable debate or avoidable discussion in this speculative forum or indeed in other communicative outlets . My own , more considered and reflective , opinion and judgment ………. Zzzzzzzzzz
Just to cheer you up ….. All riiiggghhhhttt all riiiggghhhhtttt :
http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/uploads/2296/Kinnock_thumb_09-04-92.jpg
“I tend to agree with Roger. It was Thatcher who destroyed the Tory Party, although it survived throughout the 80s, thanks to a corrupt voting system and a divided opposition.”
That’s quite an odd argument. In 1974, the Conservatives won 38%, and 35% of the vote, came third behind the Liberals among voters aged 18-34, and plenty of commentators had written the party off. Under Thatcher, the Conservatives never won less than 42% of the vote. She won over working class voters who’d never thought of voting Conservative before.
Jack, I find it hard to think of you as a normal voter (you’re far too well infomred for starters). Infact sometimes you have more than a whiff of Begbie about you
a notably level-headed fellow-countryman.
Your analysis is correct, however.
127 Tabman . I don’t know what makes you think I’m not normal :
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_oct2004/RingLeader.jpg
128 - I guess you don’t fly very often, then.
Sean @ 95
I think thats somewhat misleading. certainaly the swing the Tories now need is much smaller than in 1997 but that is not because of any significant increase in the Tory vote between 97-05, its gone up from 30.8% to 32.1 (less than 1.5%).
The swing you require has been redcued by the fall in the Labour vote. Th Tories problem and the historically significant point is that the swing away from the governing party has gone to the third aprty (libDems ) and a host of other minority parties. What the Tories don’t yet show any signs of doing (though of course that could change with a new Leader) is of winning back the support of those key swing voters it has lost rathe than merely consolidating its core vote as it has done i 2001 & 05.
129 Tabman . Aeronautically or medicinally ?
=124: Tabman. I think there was one election in the 1920s when the Liberals increased the number of seats they held - but this was a false dawn.. Probably this is where the Tories now are.
=126: Sean Fear. I do not remember that commentators were writing the Tories off in the 1970s - but perhaps my memory is at fault.
On the other hand, I do remember that a small group of Liberals saw the Tories not only as a minority group within society, but also as an endangered species. True to our principles, we wondered whether we ought to do more to support them…..
If I may re-interpret Sean’s other comment: Thatcher won a series of elections with ONLY about 42% of the vote - certainly there was no majority support for her or her policies.
As for “winning over working class support”, what was the sell-off of council housing other than a massive bribe? All it proves is that some members of the “working classes” are prepared to accept Tory bribes for their own short-term selfish benefit.
So what do today’s Tories have to bribe them with again?