Why don’t punters believe Mr. Blair?
October 1st, 2005Betting price implied probability of Blair remaining until Jan 2008 or beyond 
-
So what is happening with the Labour succession?
The Tory leadership, the by-elections and the Walter Wolfgang eviction have over-shadowed what surely, because Labour is the governing party, the most important question in British politics - when will Tony Blair hand over to Gordon Brown?
By Monday lunch-time things seemed a little bit clearer. One potential rival to Gordon Brown after another had given their public backing to the Chancellor and then we had Brown’s “New Labour renewed speech” with the announcement of his year long tour of the country.
But then then everything was knocked on the head with Cherie Blair’s off-the-cuff remarks and Tony Blair’s speech reinforcing the message that that he plans to go on and on.
The certainty of the Gordon Brown succession has also taken a bit of a knock as Andrew Grice observes in the Independent “..by the end of the week, the message from Team Blair to Mr Brown was much less conciliatory than at the start. It said it would be watching closely to see if Mr Brown signs up to the next health and education reforms planned by Mr Blair. Instead of saying Mr Brown was a shoo-in, the Blair camp’s line changed to: “Gordon is the most likely - but not the automatic - successor. In three years, a lot can change. You never know - someone else might emerge.”
Punters, meanwhile, are unimpressed. You can now get more than 2/1 on Tony Blair remaining until January 2008 - just 27 months away. The chart above shows the implied probability of Blair lasting until then based on the betting prices.
Given what we’ve seen in Brighton this week why aren’t gamblers rushing to place bets? After all you only have to tie your cash up for just over two years and you’d pick up winnings of twice the value of your stake.
Do they think that Tony Blair was not being truthful about his intention or can they foresee circumstances in which the Prime Minister will be toppled before then?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Yes, I’ve been saying for a long time that people who dislike Tony Blair are letting their feelings cloud their judgment over this. There are some who believe (incorrectly, IMO) that he deliberately tells lies, and therefore think he might stay on after the next election. Others thought he only wanted to get the election won and then retire in a cloud of glory, and they have already been proved wrong.
I’m closer to the scene than most posters here, and I’ve never seen any reason to doubt that he meant exactly what he said: he wanted to serve a full term and step down in reasonable time before the next election. Obviously this doesn’t mean a full term in the sense of the day before the election, but it also doesn’t mean next month or next year. Note that there is an important interim stage: the election of the next Labour leader. My personal prediction is that this will be announced at the 2007 conference, it will happen in spring 2008, and there will be a change of PM in the run-up to the 2008 conference, with the new PM settling in for a few months and then seeking a mandate the following spring during the honeymoon period. The press likes to generate excitement and rumours, but really people shouldn’t hold their breath. There is very little pressure in the party for a rushed change, from Gordon’s supporters or anyone else except for a few on the left.
Er, Nick, your timetable provides for Labour to have a “lame duck” leader for six months. That ain’t gonna happen - there’ll be a one day special conference or coronation. Blair has no option but to make “probationary” noises of the kind Our Genial Host is describing - so would you or I in Blair’s shoes
I think too that you’d sign up for the proposition that it’s most unlikely that anyone else could match Brown’s electoral appeal, so on the whole it’s a not very subtle bluff.
What none of us know is whether TB is more interested in money or glory for the next stage of his career - would he take the U.N. Secretary-Generalship if it were (unlikely but not impossible) offered him? I still think that in 1997 he thought there’d be a direct election for a Euro-President by now, but “events, dear boy, events”
(And that category of course includes his health - and Brown’s for that matter.)
FWIW, I think the change will take place in mid 2008 but will not be pre announced. Assuming that TB is indeed reconciled to GB as his successor and wants a smooth transition, he will do a Harold Wilson in 1976, giving a short private notice, but surprising the rest of us. And the process for formally electing Brown as party leader will be very much on the lines that IA suggests.
A consideration led by my dislike for Blair: in Cathcart (McConnell as First Minister) Labour performed very well; in Livingston (Blair as PM) Labour got a big swing against.
1-After the deliberate lies over Iraq and a culture of lies and deceit over the past 8 years who apart from a diminishing band of party poodles would believe anything Blair said?
I didn´t see the Blair speech - or any of the conference unfortunately. But I read it, and I thought that Blair said some very odd things. II think that Labour have reached the stage off having to deal with the consequences of their earlier decisions (opening hours for example). This is uncomfortable for Blair, and besides the prospects aren´t great for the economy. If something happened he could describe as a victory he be off like a shot, and slipping into that job on the board of News International.
6.”I didn´t see the Blair speech - or any of the conference unfortunately. But I read it”
As I’ve already said, I found the speech better when I read it than when I listened it. I’m probably the only one in the world considering Blair is usually praised for his media performances.
I have no doubt TB will keep his word and go brefore the next election - I am also sure taht if he did not the electorate would punish his Party. Personally I think it benefits Brown that Blair stays on for as long as possible, the country will be looking for change and he can be that change just as with Mrs T and Major.
Question: How long does the process to elect a Labour leader last? A couple of months?
Jeffh - you’re assuming the economy will stay as it is or improve. I don´t think Brown is!
Andrea - In the early years of Blair I agreed with much of what he said (I suppose he only said theings people would agree with). But I have never liked his clerical/condescending/mock-Estuary delivery. For this reason I thought Labour would be better off with Brown.
10. It seems he’s acting while he delivers a speech.
OT: New Zealand final election results (after the count of “special votes” have been declared this morning.
The final results are:
http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/partystatus.html
National Party lost a seat (Katrina Shanks) and so Labour has now a 2 seats lead over National
Brash has conceded defeat. The National hoped the “special votes” would have helped them to level Labour in terms of seats or to see the Greens falling under 5% (unlikely considering the Green Party usually have a strong performance in special votes. Infact it increased its % of votes from 5.07% to 5.30%).
Here’s the list of the 121 elected MPs: http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/successfulcand.html
The new parliament is composed by 82 men and 39 women.
O/T - But what am I missing . Giuliani is 4/6 to be next Republican Presidential Candidate and the Republicans 10/11 to win next election and yet you can get 10/1 on Giuliani being next President - seems way over the odds .
The Tory leadership survey
I’ll pass, don’t watch enough telly (never thought I’d say that :)) - beware of Wat Tyler under 101 aliases…
11 - thanks for the update Andrea. Now we just need a government to be formed in Germany, then we can announce the results of the September competition.
12 - 4/6 is absurdly short, but 10/1 is probably not a bad bet.
13.”don’t watch enough telly (never thought I’d say that )”
Naughty boy, what type of shows do you watch on TV?
I’ve already replied, but I usually see them only on Sky. Hopefully some of them don’t usually have a better performance on BBC than on Sky for some mysterious reasons!
” beware of Wat Tyler under 101 aliases…”
if DD will get some 11s, we know who’s the responsible….
2/9: Yes, when I said spring 2008, I meant that the process will run something like April-June. Handover in the recess at end-July, summer reshuffle, proper start to the new regime with the September conference. A couple of months is about right IIRC - the affiliates have to all have time to organise ballots.
I wonder if people like john at 5 realise how motivating their rants are for those who disagree - as with Printz’s predictions of mass popular revolt against Blair before the election (and a LibDem win in Broxtowe, sic!), it’s so satisfying to prove them wrong. We all have moments when we wonder if we’re doing the right thing, but the thought of Daily Express-style apoplexy spurs us onward…
16- My predictions for the handover at the moment are: a) May 2007 after having celebreted 10 years in office. The new leader will be declared at the September conference.
b) November 2008 after having passed Thatcher’record in office.
Then it could always happen something unpredictable to offer the chance for a succession
Tory leadership survey
Interesting that of the first 15 entries, 13 people have Fox in last place (or equal last) in “Do they look like a winner?”
I do hope the MPs are reading this!
14. It was a pleasure, Book Value.
18. Sadly Edward Leigh wasn’t included in the survey, I had liked to see if someone would have given him a vote higher than 3!
RE SURVEY
Aplogies to Nuala and others for restricting this to the four at the top of the betting. There are so many other possibles including Michael Ancram, Theresa May and Edward Leigh and I had to have a cut-off point somewhere or else this would become impossible for me to manage.
Nuala might like to note that at an early stage in this contest I backed Sir Malcolm at a good price. Sadly it has noew moved out even further.
Is the thursday night week in politics show watchable on the web? Thanks.
19. Here are my Leigh votes
-10
-10
-10
-10
19. “someone would have given him a vote higher than 3! ”
as election winner.
22. I could always count on you!
Just a quick note on the subject of Blair’s conference speech. I saw it all live on telly and I thought it was an excellent speech very well delivered. Most of the content was rubbish of course, but very well written rubbish. However much I or anyone else may dislike the man, you cannot deny his ability as a politician.
11 - Andrea, that’s a great pity. I do hope Don Brash stays on. I think he has excellent prospects for becoming Prime Minister next time considering the very strong performance he put in this time for National.
RE 24: I strongly agree with you AHM. It was a superb one nation Tory speech. The problem is the requisite policies will not follow. By the way does anyone think that labour’s authoritarianism is likely to become a major issue amongst the public at large rather than just the chattering classes?
24. It was a very well-written speech, but I still don’t like the delivery. I thought I was watching “The West Wing”, not a real party conference. In Brown’s speech I was able to feel the “humanity” (even if I don’t like his voice very much), while I’ve found Blair’s delivery so fake.
A little quiz. Who said this comment: Enough is enough. We can not put up with this treatment any longer. We need a thorough independent investigation into the whole New Labour culture of intimidation, suppression of dissent and the gerrymandering of conference. What has been done this week is nothing short of a disgrace and an insult to the democratic traditions of our movement
a)Alan Simpson
b)Bob Marshall Andrews
c)John Mcdonnell
d)Christine Shawcroft
AHM - The reports I read this morning (Reuters, I think) strongly indicated that Brash will indeed remain leader and contest the next election in three years time.
20 - I would have thought an appropriate cut off would have been “Declared leadership candidates”
18 - I think the “looks like an election winner” category is a bit pointless - as the most subjective of all the categories it’s inevitably being used to express personal preferences.
AHM - The Reuters story is at http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1175338&page=2
24. The way Blair manages to basically repeat all the previous years pledges and get away with it is majestical.
25/28. Brash and National performed well, but it seems that they mainly squeezed the other centre-right parties failing to take voters away from labour. At the end Labour lost only 0.16% (probably gone to the Maori Party) compared to 2002.
28, 30 - Thanks John… I certainly hope he does. Considering he doubled National’s party vote and nearly doubled their seats in Parliament he’s definitely earned that right…. and we bankers stick together, of course.
32 - All the fresh ideas and momentum were on National’s side this time, Andrea and they nearly won despite having been a mile behind Labour before the election. If they can keep things up, people will be tired of Clark and her crew in three years time, and it won’t take much of a swing at all to put them out.
34- They certainly have good chances to win next time, especially if Clark’s government will find troubles to get a majority on some issues in these 3 years.
“By the way does anyone think that labour’s authoritarianism is likely to become a major issue amongst the public at large rather than just the chattering classes? ”
No.
What might be a better line of attack is that Labour is authoritarian and ineffectual at the same time. The Human Rights Act drives a coach and horses through sensible anti-terrorist and immigration laws, and drives Labour into adopting ever more stringent measures that then get overridden in their turn.
36- Re The Human Rights Act
I know the tories would like to abolish the Human Rights Act. People could still take their cases to the European Court Human Rights in Strasbourg and how would a tory government face a situation where the ECHR will rule in an opposite direction? Could they simply ignore them?
37 - I don’t think so. But I think the point is that going through the ECHR takes ages and most people wouldn’t do it. Repealing the human rights act would remove a line of defence for defence lawyers because British judges wouldn’t be required to take it into account.
Tabbers, Tabbers - Rating Clarke and Davis equal in media skills? What have you been smoking this morning?
I think Mike should have added a section for “perceived popularity with the wider electorate” because Clarke is getting some ridiculously high ratings for his public speaking skills
Good Lord Clarke and Davis equal shocking. Even a right winger like me sees that.
38-.” But I think the point is that going through the ECHR takes ages and most people wouldn’t do it.”
If a UK court sentences me to life prison (or for a high number of years), I would take my case to ECHR even if it’ll take ages to decide.
40 - Oh really? And where is your entry, Alex?
That’s an interesting question Andrea.
The justification for the HRA was that it would simply mean that cases could now be dealt with much more cheaply and quickly at home that would have gone previously to the European Court of Human Rights. In practice, it has given domestic judges the freedom to interpret the the Convention in a much more creative way than most of their continental counterparts do (eg ruling that it breaches the HRA for Denis Neilsen to be denied hard core pornography in prison, or that it breaches the HRA for a Luton Muslim girl to comply with school uniform regulations).
If the HRA were repealed, then indeed people would still be able to take their cases to Strasbourg. While most rulings of the ECHR are obeyed by members of the Council of Europe, compliance with its rulings is effectively voluntary. The Greek Government for example, refuses to return the property of its former Royal Family, notwithstanding that the ECHR has ruled against it on the issue.
Several European governments also derogate from various sections of the Convention. The French government, for example, refuses to allow any cases to be brought against its armed forces under the Convention.
43 - He’s not a particularly good public speaker, is he? His voice tends to turn into a high pitched screech. Maybe people like that
Wouldn’t want to compromise my neutrality
I don’t think it’s a particularly useful survey, not least because people are clearly not fulfilling the brief of “how each candidate will fare with Tory party members”. Even you accept that it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that Clarke is gaining support because of his policy platform (which he doesn’t, as yet, have)
45.” His voice tends to turn into a high pitched screech”
I don’t think we’re judging who has the the best voice
45 - Actually, I think he’s quite a good public speaker and his manner is one that resonates with the public, and I am a Tory party member, so all I had to do was answer as I thought. As far as his policy platform goes, I’ve acknowledged in my entry that this is KC’s weakness - mainly due to his past Euro-enthusiasm. The difference is that I think people are prepared to overlook that this time and give him credit for the other attributes he scores much better on.
I wasn’t questioning your answers AHM - although technically even you haven’t fulfilled the brief if you just gave your own views (unless you think that they tally with those of the membership ;-))
I think it’s very hard to separate out one’s own personal feelings from those of Tory members generally.
Come on then, Alex.. If you’re going to take issue with what the rest of us are saying in our entries, it’s only sporting of you to participate as well.. just remember to try and keep your antipathy toward Clarke out of it and answer objectively, as the thread is intended.
49 - Of course Sean, but that’s what the poor LibDems on here have to try and do…
48 - Based on the discussions I’ve had with fellow members over the past several weeks, my views are largely in harmony with what I’ve been hearing, and I think others on this site have made similar statements.
12 Mark I agree there seems to be a miscast….
I would say the wrong leg was 4/6 on being the Republican candidate rather than 10/1 against being President
O/T but specially for Jack W - Andrew Murray is in final of Thailand Open against Roger Federer - A great performance
There the survey doesn’t work. I’ve got the party voting for Liam Fox
Would have been different if there had been categories for uniting the party and popularity with the public
Well done, Alex… equivocal, but better than nothing. The fence sitting on the 4th point is particularly impressive - are you sure you aren’t already a Lib Dem?
56 - I did point out above that I thought the fourth category was somwhat pointless
57 - Oh, I’m not terribly sure about that. The last eight years have demonstrated that perception is quite important in politics. What’s that old saying? ‘Perception is reality’?
58 - pointless for the purposes of the survey. Everyone will think their own favoured candidate looks like an election winner.
Slightly O/T but what is it about this country that makes “presentation skills” and “charisma” such a crucial thing for our politicians. Is it just that public attraction is much more important in our FPTP system, but less important in these raft of European countries with PR? Or is it just a feature of some of these European countries that they don’t have anyone in their entire country with any charisma?
59 - I don’t think that is entirely true either, Alex. Andy Cooke has rated Clarke highly in 4 and he commented recently on another thread that he would personally find it difficult to support Clarke as leader. Sean Fear has also rated Clarke highest in that category and I don’t sense that Sean is particularly warm towards KC. Don’t be such a spoil sport!
60 - Charisma seemed to play a fairly large factor in the recent German election, although not quite enough in the end.
62 - The second explanation then.
Are the tories about to shoot themselves in the foot yet again?
Almost every entry has Fox last to the question “Do they look a winner?” yet……
……. apparently there is a story in The Sun saying 50 MPs are going to vote for Fox!
Incidentally, I happen to agree with you that is a bit of a shame that charisma and that sort of personal quality seems to count for so much. Campaigning ability does not necessarily correlate to ability to govern, otherwise, as someone deftly pointed out just the other day on here, Tony Blair would be the most successful PM in our history.
Have not completed survey as I could not complete it as if I were a Conservative supporter and if so a left wing or right wing one
64 - The Sun is backing Fox (and so will the Telegraph probably if he reaches the last 2). Don’t underestimate him.
64 - ‘Apparently’? Have you actually seen it, and if you have, does it mention any names?
Sounds fishy to me.
What’s more the fact that the Sun is backing Fox will be enough to convince many MPs to support him
69 - Obviously, I am not a Sun reader, but when did they come out with backing for Fox?
70 - not formally, but i think they have made positive noises. It should hardly be a surprise considering the Tories only get a positive press from them when they make hardline statements on Europe, crime, tax or immigration.
69 - I very much doubt that, and still less party members. The cynical Murdoch/loathsome Sun rag strategy is well known - support the most Eurosceptic (and far right Tory) but then continue back Labour at the crucial point. As well as naturally protecting his variois semi-monopolies and the exercise of “power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages” as memorably declared by Baldwin in 1931.
One of the key selling points of Clarke for me personally is the hope for a one-in-the-eye for the repulsive Dirty Digger (later, I might tell you what I really think
)
71 - Perhaps not, but I would still be surprised to see a formal statement of support from them for either candidate. Our MPs know the track record of the Murdoch press for being notoriously fickle and transient. I hope they are more astute than to be swayed by it.
Remember the only time the Sun cares about the electability of the people it is backing is two days before an election - when they try to come out for the winner. The rest of the time it is just interested in pushing its own hard-right agenda. It also sees pushing the Tories rightwards as a useful way to do the same with the Labour Party (at least under Tony Blair, who has consistently pursued a strategy of claiming ground the Tories have abandoned)
The problem for the Tories is that many of them can’t appreciate that, and think that a positive Sun editorial is a sign of approval from the wider electorate - and many will be seduced by it.
64 - Fox can get to 40 votes quite quickly if you just add in the undeclared cornerstone members and former-IDS supporters. So 50 is quite possible with the new intake being quite right wing and Fox knowing them from his time as party chairman
73 - Maybe not yet. I would suspect that they will continue to puff up Fox and will only switch to someone like Davis if it looks like Ken is a big danger. If Fox made it to the last two I have no doubt they would support him to the hilt, as they did with IDS.
72 - Spot on, John.
Alex,
I am not sure it is correct that the Sun is backing Fox. They are backing his view on the EU and they are attacking Clarke’s as they do Labour’s, but they back Labour in a General Election and they are always more likely to back the party that they think is going to win. In a general election they would be far more likely to back Clarke than Fox because they don’t like being on the losing side! Do you have a quote of them backing Fox, because I haven’t seen one?
Mike (Smithson), I would not be at all surprised that the results of pb.com’s Tory leadership survey will receive extensive publicity. Was this, in part, your intention and are you lining yourself up with another World at One interview or indeed the gold medal of a Newsnight appearance?
I think we should be told
78 - the point about a general election is a bit irrelevant because there won’t be a choice of Clarke and Fox in a general election..
68. Sorry I’ve not seen it.
This is starting to have all the hallmarks of a repeat of the IDS debacle. In a Davis v Fox final amongst MPs, Davis would win by a landslide.
But amongst members, with media support, Fox may somehow sneek it. It would be as big a disaster as IDS.
And of course it may well end up in exactly the same way. As Fox would not have the support of a majority of MPs he may well face a vote of no confidence resulting in him losing the job in a year or two.
You would have thought the lesson would have been learnt but maybe it has’t been.
81 - Chin up, Mike. Things are nowhere near that - yet, anyway.
79 - I wouldn’t think so seeing as it’s a survey designed to find out what people think that the Tory membership will do, which obviously is somewhat less accurate than actual scientifically conducted proper surveys of the membership. Maybe he can find a way to spin it though
I suspect, not having signed up to the BPC, that he will be a bit wary though 
Alex,
I think you have misunderstood my point.In a general election the Sun backs winners therefore the question is whether Clarke is more likely to be a threat to Labour or Fox? Whichever one is more of a threat to Labour is more likely to get their support. With Fox’s policy platform Labour would demolish him. Look what Schroder did to Merkel, with 4.5 million unemployed now think what Labour will do to `flat taxers’ with an economy that will probably be in better shape than Germany’s.
84 - I don’t think “who will be the greatest threat to Labour” will be anywhere near the front of the Sun thinking. They have after all backed Labour at three successive general elections. See my post at 74. If come the 2009 general election the Tories are unelectable then they will just back Labour again…
Do not assume that all the Cornerstone group will back Fox. I know a couple of them who are privately pledged to Davis and one who is considering Clarke. I think Leigh’s idea that he has some unthinking bloc is wide of the mark.
86 - I know. Julian Brazier, Philip Davies, Ian Liddell-Grainger, & Lee Scott have backed DD. Desmond Swayne has backed Fox.
I was just saying it is not implausible that Fox could get 50
59-”Everyone will think their own favoured candidate looks like an election winner”
well, it’s not always true. If someone asks me if I prefer John Reid or Bob Marshall Andrews, I would reply BMA. If they ask me who is more likely to win an election, I would say Reid.
60.”Or is it just a feature of some of these European countries that they don’t have anyone in their entire country with any charisma?”
I think it’s a bit unfair to say that other EU leaders are charismaless. Some of them have their own charisma.
But I agree that in some other countries the leader’s personality is less important than in UK.
I could speak for the Italy. Berlusconi is charismatic presence (and very divisive too). Prodi (the opposition’s leader) is “boring” (when he speaks, it seems he’s at a funeral sometimes).
88 - some European countries, Andrea
There is a lot of hyperbole on here about how Davis, for example, CANNOT (or would find it very difficult to) be elected. Well he would not look out of place next to the leaders of several European countries (admittedly mainly the smaller ones).
89. Alex, after posting it I’ve realized you said “some”. But then I had to find something to disagree with you about (we haven’t had out daily disagreement yet).
90 - Do we normally have disagreements? I hadn’t noticed. What about?
91- Not serious disagreement, but I seem to recall that in the last couple of days we’ve always something we disagree about (for ex. same gender classes).
Then I still remember the “obsessions and extreme interests”
92 - Nah most things are just because of slight misunderstandings of the language
93. I’m not surprise that my English leads to misunderstandings. I sometimes misunderstand my own comments when I re-read them! (I sometimes wonder “what the hell did I want to say here?)
94 - Yeah i’m just a bit mischievous sometimes. I can usually see straight away when you’ve misunderstood something, but sometimes just decide to string you along for a little bit. Sorry!
I’m sure it’s all good practice for you though 
87 - I think Fox will be well short of 50. He has about 12 now, even if you add 20 Cornestone group he still only gets to about 30. I would be surprised if he gets more than half of Cornerstone and that is assuming Leigh doesnt run.
96 - Is it not possible that he might have a few more ‘hidden’ supporters than the others? (except perhaps Clarke, for possible constituency reasons) There is no real reason for Davis supporters to keep quiet (except if asked to by Davis for tactical reasons) since he is likely to go all the way to the final. On the other hand backing someone like Fox could be a very dodgy career move if he slumps in the first round - far better, if you are attracted to him, to wait to see the true level of support that he has in the first round.
95. You’re a bad boy. You’re seriously risking to receive a photo of the Gorgon soon.
96. Rik, do you have the full list of Cornerstone MPs (and the total numbers?
I know that the following MPs are part of the group:Brian Binley; Peter Bone
Julian Brazier
Douglas Carswell
William Cash
Christopher Chope
Robert Goodwill
John Hayes
Edward Leigh
Ian Liddell-Grainger
Owen Paterson
Andrew Rosindell
Lee Scott
Andrew Selous
Desmond Swayne
Angela Watkinson
Who are the others?
I don’t know who the Gorgon is, but I personally don’t think calling people things like that is very nice. There we’ve had a disagreement now
David Burrowes is a member.
I think I’d better stay out of this one - the poll results will be of interest beyond pb.com, and it’d be a pity if someone could say ‘yeah, and the voters included a Labour MP!’
I’m tempted to take on AHM and Sean Fear over the position of Tony Blair in history (yes, don’t choke, but on the whole I do think he’s been the most successful PM), but it wouldn’t get us anywhere. A more reflective reply, though: what are the key characteristics of a successful PM? Achieving lasting culture change (which would rule out nearly everyone and is too early to be sure for both Thatcher and Blair in their different ways), fighting successful wars when they should be fought and staying out of others (we all have our views on that), achieving peace in knotty disputes (Ulster?), receiving repeated electoral endorsement (which would rule out Churchill and Attlee), improving public services and reducing crime…? I suspect that a consensus on the criteria is almost as hard as agreeing on the winner.
99. The “Gorgon of the Soke” is Jack’s nickname for Helen Clark (not the NZ PM).
100. Thanks Sean. I suppose that Philip Davies and Mark Harper are members too, right?
101 -
:lol: :lol;
Are you looking for a peerage or something in St Tony’s retirement honours, Nick?
More talk of the Earl of Ancram being Cornerstone’s man:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article316364.ece
104. From The Independent:
The group has about 25 MPs
umh, this Cornerstone Group is a bit mysterious. Not even the total number of their members is very clear.
98. The Cornerstone website lists 27 MPs. See link:
http://cornerstone.blogs.com/
Re 87, Philip Davies is not listed on the Cornerstone website but the other 3 DD backers you identify are.
Desmond Swayne is among the 10 MPs who have already publicly declared for Fox.
Therefore there are a potential 23 further Cornerstone MPs who are up for grabs.
106. Thanks for the full list, Mike L.
Michael Ancram has moved a long way to the right, it would seem. Back in the seventies, he was very much a Heathite.
108 - he strikes me as someone who doesn’t have many enemies in the party, without really being regarded as a big hitter. Is that an accurate perception?
Yes, I think that’s right.
108. Do you think Michael Ancram could get votes outside Cornerstone’s MPs too?
108 - Indeed: Ancram (or Lothian as I prefer to think of him) does look superficially like a patrican One Nation type with a socially conservative side inspired by his faith, a bit like Gummer. But he didn’t endorse Clark in either 97 or 01, IIRC.
On people not doing the survey properly:
You see I don’t understand results like this:
2. Policy Portfolio,
Cameron 7; Clarke 8; Davis 5; Fox 4
Ancram must be liked by everyone, because I can’t think of any of good reason why he has been in leading positions in the Conservative Party for so many years.
42.”
If a UK court sentences me to life prison (or for a high number of years), I would take my case to ECHR even if it’ll take ages to decide.”
If all British prisons are this one, I think I could accept the UK verdict!
I think his Lordship is an amiable chap who’s personality is such that people find it easy to like him. I’ve met him personally on several occassions and I think he’s a very fine gentleman, but I don’t see him being leader at all.
116. He does come across as a nice chap but in no way is he leadership material. For a barrister, I’ve been underwelmed by his DPMQ sessions with Prescott.
Commenting on the other thread, Cameron’s educational background is a negative, but one I think he can overcome: if he had more of the traditional characteristics of the landed classes, it would be worse. Clarke’s long career is, on the whole, a plus, despite its more combative moments, but I think that its impact will diminish over time: after all, the Majorite years will look very distant to most voters by the end of this decade, with most voters under 30 having no very clear memory of his time in office. Davis has a usefully varied background and a sound parliamentary career, with most of his negatives here being more apparent to his colleagues than the public, but he has not made a huge positive impact on the public either. Fox’s career has been one of unremarkable advancement so far. Clarke has the edge here, I feel.
On policy: Cameron has the right mood music, but we’re not entirely sure where he would intend to go with his prescription for change. A leadership candidate must set out a strategic direction, if not detailed arguments for policy. Apart from his recent Euro tergivsations, which should go down well, Clarke appears to offer a return to Majorite policy in most areas; not a total negative, but an approach which needs a robust sell in “new” terms. Davis offers a competent, but, again, uninspiring blend of traditionalist thinking and policies designed to “reach out” to potential Tory voters. Fox offers more red meat at present, good for the core but less likely to attract voters. Davis, I feel, can provide the right balance between promoting change and keeping the core happy.
As far as speaking and media concerns are concerned, Cameron can rise to the challenge, as he demonstrated during the week, but he hasn’t had a big test yet in the Chamber. Execllent parliamentary skills didn’t save Hague, but the lack of them was a big factor in the sundering of IDS (some of his PMQs looked like Tyson at his zenith facing a bantamweight). Clarke is accomplished and punchy, but people should never forget his ability to make big gaffes - factories in Consett, reading Maastricht - and mistakes like that could well reoccur at crucial moments. Davis is competent-to-mediocre: not a premier league performer at all. Fox can be good at media performances - casual viewers like his looks and Scottish accent - but there is an inner unlikeability that resurfaces.
Cameron could probably look like an excellent GE winner by the next election, but he might not do if he has to grow into the role on the job, which is a major problem. Clarke is the right leader for the Conservative Party, with the wrong age and in the wrong ideological epoch; those two latter negatives will undermine his many positives. Davis really needs to raise his game to look like a real winner, although that won’t matter if the cards fall his way. Fox, at the moment, doesn’t really look like a leadership material.
My overall totals put Clarke first, but I’d not give each factor the same weighting, so I still feel justified in going for Davis, though reluctantly and unenthusiastically.
Just been talking to a 2005 entrant Lib Dem MP about the Tory race and an insight I had not really picked up before is how Tory MPs behave when DD is speaking in the chamber. They just carry on talking to each other and there’s not much respect for him. The Tories, according to the MP, are transfixed by DD’s background but there’s little else in his favour.
Will those Tory MPs who have gone public for DD actually vote for him in the secret ballot? It would be highly damaging if the number of his public declarations was greater than the actual number of votes.
“An insight I had not really picked up before is how Tory MPs behave when DD is speaking in the chamber. They just carry on talking to each other and there’s not much respect for him.”
That sounds very like the kind of thing IDS suffered from. Though at least in DD’s case, Eric Forth presumably doesn’t ringlead it.
119 - at least they make the effort to be in the chamber in the first place
Interesting, and a potential negative - although Paddy Ashdown apparently suffered from the same problem in the chamber too, as his speeches there were seen as verbose, pompous, and lacking in self-awareness.
119-” They just carry on talking to each other ”
I thought it was a common thing!
Btw, Mike Smithson, I’ve noticed that you gave low marks to all the main 4 candidates in the “policy portfolio” area. If any of them represents well the party membership, who could represent their views better IYO?
119. I thought most MPs did this anyway. There is hardly anyone in the chamber anyway during most debates so I don’t think this means a lot. The only time I’ve seen it busy with DD speaking is during the ID debate and after July 7th and from what one could tell, there was not much chating while DD was speaking.
P.S Has DD slashed your tyres or something Mike. You seem to be giving him the Kennedy treatment.
You’re going to have to come up with some positives at some point Mike - you must be very confused as to how he’s got getting on for 75-80 (by some accounts) declared and undeclared supporters
124 - I’m sure it’s Mike’s genuine opinion, Woody. But when he needs to get a market to move in his favour (he backed Ken the other day) our hosts views do tend to get a bit more certain and strident
125.”you must be very confused as to how he’s got getting on for 75-80 (by some accounts) declared and undeclared supporters ”
Not necessarly. Someone could think that it’s perfectly reasonable that tory MPs vote for the wrong man.
125 - So, you are contending that Mike is putting his mouth where his money is rather than putting his money where his mouth is? How very cynical of you, Alex!
Seriously though, I think Mike has got it about right.
123.” If any of them represents ”
it should be “if NONE of them….”
124/126. I think our host is desperate to avoid a GE with Brown/Davis/Kennedy as leaders.
123 - Good point Andrea. I wonder what Mike sees as the perfect policy portfolio from a tory member perspective? I guess they’re all being marked down for not explicitly promising to leave the European Union. I wonder if UKIP’s manifesto would earn a 10?
I’m more interested by his CV numbers. If his examples were any guide to his thinking then he has the Tory membership down as heavily pro selling cigarettes to kids in the Third World, and indifferent (perhaps a 50:50 split?) to whether they went to Eton or were brought up by a single mum.
128 - It’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation, AHM
It was more a general observation - a similar trend occurred during both the London Mayoral election (when Ken’s price stubbornly refused to lengthen) and the US Presidential Election.
Leaving the betting aside the prospect that fills me with horror is for the 2009 GE line-up to be Brown/Davis/Kennedy & the worst of those, by some way, is the last. At least Davis is smart and Brown very hard-working. I cannot think of a positive for CK except that his “laid backness” is said to have some public appeal.
132 - That’s the spirit Mike!
132 - btw how are you going to manage to talk Brown out of the Prime Ministership? That could be a tough one! I know you were pinning your hopes on Blair reneging on his promise but that looks a long shot
134. He has already said that Labour members are stupid if they would elect Brown as leader.
I’m bemused by the prospect of Michael Ancram standing as the candidate of the the foam-mouthed Cornerstone Group. He’s always been a fairly moderate if lacklustre figure. Obviously has a colossal ego if he thinks he’s remotely cut-out to be leader.
132 - Mike: Cheeky of me to ask this, I know; but are there circumstances under which you would consider voting Conservative if Ken Clarke were our leader? What about any of the others? Just for interest’s sake. Thanks.
134. Perhaps an economic crash might be talked up.
136. Sheer desperation.
137 - He’s claimed he would, AHM (Clarke that is).
106 - Philip Davies signed the Spectator letter which is seen as Cornerstone inspired.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4141294.stm
Philip’s wife Debbie used to be DD’s agent.
138 “Perhaps an economic crash might be talked up.”
I think Mike would make an effort with a quarter percent rise in Interest rates
Perhaps a leadership bid from the barneted one after this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4301442.stm
142. I’m a bit worried about the state of his hair when he emerged from the river after having saved the poor man.
142 - Michael Fabricant! Yes, now there is a man who could make a fist of it. Step forward Fab and claim your destiny.
47 - AHM I totally agree with your assessment of Ken Clarke. As a fellow tory member I think the mood in the party has changed a lot over the last few years and next week is going to be interesting.
145 - Thanks Chris. I hope there are many more like-minded souls out there.
Sky News paper review Mail on Sunday:
“Thatcher backs Davis”
Als
Away from the triviality of the Tory contest, news from New Zealand that the counting of special votes has cost National a vital seat and reduced the size of the new Parliament to 121. With Labour and the Progressives on 51 and the Greens on 6 and NZ First agreeing to support the larger party, Helen Clark looks set to form the next Government without needing United Future or ACT support.
Brash has conceded. Details are here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3429838a14095,00.html
Sunday Express:
There is a story saying all leadership campaign managers will meet after the election and compare notes.
If they find anyone has promised to vote for 2 candidates they will try to get the MP deselected!
149 - Bad news (allegedly) for David Ruffley….
But, seriously, this is ocntrol-freakery of the highest order.
147 - No surprise there. Obviously a great boost for DD if it is confirmed, but I must respectfully disagree with Mrs T on this one. Now, if she were to come back and take the reins again herself…. well, I might just have to reconsider my support for KC then.
150 - Please tell - he has come out publicly for DD. Last time he backed Portillo and came out for KC when the vote went to members. Lets have the dirt !
148 - Old news, Stodge.
149 - That’s ridiculous if it’s true. It is a private ballot after all.
10 more MPs have declared for DD:
http://icnorthlondononline.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16198533&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=ten-more-mps-back-davis-for-leader-name_page.html
I52 - There was some suspicion (or so I’ve heard since then) that his private vote didn’t match his endorsements in 2001. The 1997 camapign managers apparently awarded him the prize for false protestations of support.
Re: 153 - apologies, Mr Matlock. I had assumed all you Tories were totally dedicated to dissecting the ebb and flow of leadership debate. Perhaps there is something to be learned from Mr Brash’s experience.
156 - Thanks observer
Davis in The Telegraph. He says no to flat tax and to make abortion a top issue. Then he seems to fall in the trap to believe Brown will be a sort of old labour’s PM.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZPA31FRSSFSQDQFIQMFCM5OAVCBQYJVC?xml=/news/2005/10/02/ntory02.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/02/ixportaltop.html
I keep hearing that DD has about 75/80 MPs supporting him. What about everyone else?
159 - Have we got a list of the new 10 MP’s yet?