First on stage…Sir Malcolm Rifkind
October 3rd, 2005-
Can the former Foreign Secretary make the speech his life?
May is a long time ago and it’s probably been forgotten that in the early phases of this seemingly never-ending contest Sir Malcom Rifkind was joint second favourite at just 9/1.
But it was always going to be hard for the Foreign Secretary in the last Tory Government who lost his seat in 1997. It took him eight years to get back to Westminster and on his return he faced the daunting challenge of building up networks and alliances within the parliamentary party- a large part of which did not know him and were unaware of his talents.
Not for Sir Malcolm being part of the “Notting Hill” younger generation Tories which is playing a key role supporting the David Cameron campaign or the party-wide links that Liam Fox built up as Chairman
Not for Sir Malcolm being there like Ken Clarke during two full terms in opposition continuing to remind people of his “big beast status”.
Not for Sir Malcolm having a team like David Davis’s which had its origins in the Maastricht whips’ office of the mid-90s. As Peter Oborne describes it in the Spectator this week Davis’s team then “… enjoyed a never understated aura of physical intimidation, and that has not gone away. Almost any method that came to hand — bribery, intimidation, though rarely charm — was brought to bear.”
So Rifkind has all the problems of being a new boy and an old boy at the same time. The result is that he has hardly any MPs declaring for him and his only hope is his Blackpool conference spot.
-
Can he make the speech of a life-time this morning that resonates with delegates and sends a message across the membership that he can lead the party to bring down Labour?
Of all the candidates he’s certainly capable of making the “speech of the conference”, and he’s probably going to be helped by the extra attention of being first up. But will a great speech be enough? No other contenders are due at the rostrum until tomorrow’s appearances by Ken Clarke and David Cameron. But after Wednesday when it’ll be the turn of David Davis and Liam Fox will the party still remember Sir Malcolm’s contribution?
Although it’s hard to see him progressing do not rule it out. Anything could happen at this conference.
Tory leadership betting prices
Conventional bookmakers best price: Davis 1/2: Clarke 5/2: Cameron 10/1: Fox 10/1: Rifkind 33/1 Betfair betting exchange: Davis 0.54/1: Clark 3.6/1: Cameron 9/1: Fox 11.5/1: Rifkind 59/1 BinaryBet spread market. Davis 60-67: Clarke 20-26: Cameron 5-9 Fox 5-9: Rifkind 1-3
If you have not yet taken part in our Tory Leadership survey then please post your response by 6pm.
MessageSpace Advertising
Meanwhile it looks like there has been a well-timed leak to embarrass Ken Clarke:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1583419,00.html
1. It was bound to happen sometime…..
Interesting poll
…But better news for Ken in the YouGov poll in this morning’s Telegraph. Still the overwhelming choice of the public as Leader and rayer more significantly, David Davis has only a 4% lead (48-44) among Party members
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/03/ntory03.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/03/ixnewstop.html
Mike. As someone with £40 on Fox at 12/1 and £40 on Cameron at (a dreadful) 5/1 could you or someone else clever tell me how to hedge my position?
On Rifkind, as a Scot he’s always seemed decent but unimpressive. He may have been a Foreign Secretary once but this was in a period where the great offices of state were handed out liek sweeties - even Major held two before becoming PM.
Not sure how ‘rather’ became ‘rayer’…
Of 100 selected floating voters :
41% would favour the Conservatives if Clarke was the Leader vs 43% if it was Davis.
So that’s that myth lanced then !
Who selected them? You and Ann Widdecombe?
Puzzled by the Telegraph poll showing Rifkind as the candidate whom most people feel should *not* be leader. 55% of Tory party members surveyed think that. I’ve no strong feelings either way, frankly. What have they got against him? Perhaps that he’s part of the ancien regime, without being Kenneth Clarke?
My gut feeling is that Davis has got it sewn up, failing some startling turn of events. He’ll have a big lead among MPs, and members, who are currently leaning marginally to Davis anyway, will go along.
9 - Well i assume that a combination of being part of the ancien regime and his main “achievement” within that regime being the role he played in Yugoslavia.
If you look at the poll you see a large number of people still remember Rifkind (47% recognition), and one doubts that can be for positive reasons. The whole poll screams “recognition factor” as a major skewing factor (how can anyone have an opinion about Cameron with 10% recognition?) - of course the Rifkind figures provide a useful boost for Clarke (at least he is recognised AND popular, although he also attracts a lot, although not as much, hostility)
8 No I A
ICM according to the Guardian unlimited poll !!!
Tory Boy re 7. 100 is by no means a sufficient sample to read anything in to.
13 - of course not, it’s just an interesting perspective on things and goes a long way to showing up the inadequacies of traditional polling methods for contests of this type.
It obviously wouldn’t be possible to do this with a proper sample of 5-600.
13 Chuckle chuckle.
ICM & The Guardian are now out to stitch up KC with half truths are they ?
I agree it offers a snapshot rather than a definitive picture, but you can’t pick and choose which bits of a survey you like and those which you would prefer to ignore.
15 - “ICM & The Guardian are now out to stitch up KC with half truths are they?”
Looking at today’s paper it looks like it
Tory Boy,
You can choose which surveys and which part of surveys to look at based on whether they are statistically rigorous or not. As everyone on here knows You Gov has the best record and ICM quantitative surveys are also OK. Alex is right that you need at least 5-600.
17 - Although they are flawed for different reasons.
[16] Haven’t seen the dear old rag yet, but I’d be astonished if there wasn’t a sizeable faction (probably led by Peter Preston) rooting for whoever they thought would be easiest to beat. Steve Bell’s probably a Clarkeite, all cartoonists hate having to draw new faces…
Mr Smithson, your article contains only your version of the negatives surrounding Sir Malcolm. On the positive side you could have added:
1) He was not around during the debacles of 1997 - 2005
2) He offers the one nation credentials that Clarke does without the europhile baggage
3) He would have broad appeal in the wider electorate, combining gravitas associated with his mature years and a mild but assertive manner.
That his colleagues fail to see the advantages offered by Sir Malcolm points to the dirth of talent represented by those MPs remaining after the 1997 catastrophe. Were the membership to have its say without having to be refracted through the prism of the Parliamentary party, he would be a front runner.
What is starting to come across is that if Cameron gets to the final two then he looks like a winner whoever he is standing against. The more media attention he gets the more people seem to like him.
Ken’s position has not really changed - he is divisive but is popular.
As to name recognition DD has only himself to blame. He’s been an MP for nearly two decades; he’s been a minister and chairman of the most powerful Commons committee and he was a leadership candidate in 2001. It’s just that he prefers to operate as a machine politician operating behind the scenes. He’s been very effective - but it’s his public image that will bre crucial in the membership ballot.
My guess is that he might just squeeze home against Ken Clarke but would be beaten by David Cameron.
TB - Granted, but Cameron managed to appeal to 50%. I should imagine your defection to his camp is imminent ;).
Seriously though, I’m very wary of any poll which invests in jiggery-pokery such as not including the candidates’ names, only takes selected bits of their speeches and not covering their records in office. The name “Ken Clarke” to (most) floating voters conveys an impression of moderate Conservatism, long experience and economic recovery. I’d say that the Telegraph/YouGov poll is more scientific, and holds with what I’ve contended all along - Clarke is more popular with the public, but potentially divisive. My instinct is, however, that if the poll ratings start rising, the dissenters will fall quiet. Conversely, sustained low opinion polls tend to brew mutinous intentions, as I’m sure IDS could tell you.
TB - And David Cameron managed to muster 50%. I suspect a defection may be imminent ;).
Joking aside, I’m skeptical of such shenanigans as not including the candidates’ names, only taking snippets of them in action and ignoring their record (or lack thereof) in office; and as has been pointed out, a sample size of 100 does not make a scientific poll.
The Telegraph/YouGov poll is probably nearer the truth: Davis and Clarke are the two candidates with a realistic chance of winning, and both have their advantages and drawbacks. The main drawback of KC is that he is potentially divisive. Davis, I accept, would probably be the “safety first” choice entailing modest improvements in the party’s position. However, if Clarke can cure the malaise and start increasing our poll ratings, I imagine that the dissenters would fall into line. As I’ve posted previously, our last “divisive” leader was a certain Mrs Thatcher (further reading: Ian Gilmour’s Dancing with Dogma) but whilst she was riding high there was little that her internal opponents could do to harm her.
20 - Nuala have you seen the YouGov poll in the Telegraph?
Rats !! Mike, you’ve managed to resurrect this Malc thread
Poor old Mal, I’d usually be cheering on a fellow Scot, but his undoubted charm and One Nation Conservatism is utterly torpedoed by his media profile and perceived Scottish hooray Hamish voice and manner. I thought Crispin Blunt did a good job for him on Adam Boulton yesterday, but the inevitable graceful retirement from the field is inevitable ……. after the conference and before nominations close.
Jack W wrote the inevitable graceful retirement from the field is inevitable - yes, indeed, I too have found that the inevitable as a certain, how shall I put it, inevitability about it
20 - Nuala, come on girl, Jack may have his foibles but you have to admit that his argument has a certain logic to it, shall we say. Mind you, logic and the Conservative Membership are not always constant companions
26 IA. There’s a clear clarity and undoubted undoubtidness about my assured assurity … I’m incontrovertibly convinced on that . Is that irrefutable and indubitable ?
Just as well I’m not writing scripts today
26 Tabman. I do worry when you agree with me
Short of an endorsement from Printz or Bruce Anderson, it’s a mighty disturbing development !!
Some of us older readers may wonder if Sir Malc is actually the reincarnation of Sir Alec Douglas-Home. I have had to double check - but he actually was PM for a year.
Think that after the BAT spinning I will close my Betfair position on Clarke.
It should be quite a day at the Tory conference :
Francis Maude : The chairman kicks of the show at 2.30pm. He’ll do something of a May and confront the membership with the reality of the hole they’re in. To far to the right and still perceived as the nasty party. Could go down like a bacon sandwich at a bar mitzvah.
Theresa May : Following on from Maude, Miss Pus*y Galore - will she declare. I think not, and if not will she do an encore of Maude Nasty party II speech ? It’ll really cheer them up !!
Malc : At around 3.20, the Chelsea Chav (not) will try for a leadership lazarus ….. expect weeping in the hall from the blue rinse mafia ….. and Don Corleone Nuala .
IDS : Around 4.00 the “Quiet Man” returns …. is anyone listening ?? Nope
BREAKING TORY NEWS !!!!!!!!!!
Andrew Lansley will NOT stand for the leadership. He as yet will not endorse a candidate but expects DD and our Ken to contest the membership vote.
31 - Is that based on any special insight or has he just read the telegraph?
[24] I can not see Rifkind as a Hooray Hamish- he sounds like what he is, a slightly prissy Edinburgh lawyer. As far as his record in office is concerned. As Scottish Secretary he arguably delayed the rout that occured under Michael Forsyth, and was not personally ever so unpopular, indeed I would say that he is remembered, not just in Edinburgh (nor solely amongst the Scottish Conservatives), with affection, even respect. At the FCO he was a remarkable improvement on his compromised predecessor, the appalling Douglas Hurd. He took on board the catastrophe of British policy in ex-Yugoslavia, and managed to make it a whole lot more credible, if alas, no more successful as far as Bosnia was concerned
Jack - sounds as if you despair of the Tories ever getting their act together.
Surely the recent election was a great success for them, just one more heave, especially with the economy collapsing about GB’s ears, should do it - surely.
Mr Tabman, I thank you not to use such an overly-familiar tone with me. I am not your, or anyone else’s, “girl”. That you and Mr W see eye to eye on the issue of Sir Malcolm’s leadership abilities is no surprise, given the general level of inanity that you and others indulge in.
KC would be a much less divisive leader than DD. That is because, and only because, he is so much better performer in/on the media. He would be able to overcome the ‘divisive’ tag much more easily than DD, even though in fact he has much more to overcome.
I think the tory membership did really well not to elect KC before—there would have been a real chance of our now having the Euro. It’ll be tough to rewind TB’s constitutional damage, impossible(?) to get out of the Euro.
Nuala, don’t rise to the bait !!
36 DK
KC a “much less” divisive than DD, please…..
Whatever KC’s strengths might be, this is emphatically a (major)
flaw in his candidacy.
Much less divisive indeed …..
Acctually Tory Boy I agree with David Kendrick. As has been pointed out by other people Margaret Thatcher and for that matter Tony Blair are divisive figures but electoral success undermines your enemies. On the other hand IDS was not a divisive figure…..
32 alex. The story is all over the wires now. Certainly bowing to the inevitable. I understand he could have mustered a rifkind - bugger all !!
33 James O. Can’t disagree with much of that. It’s just Mal isn’t right for the top job.
34 Icarus. No, the conference will get better, but a dose of reality at the start will simply magnify the real choice available, the more so as Davis and our Ken speak on the same day !!
What time is Rifkind’s speech?
35 - Don’t worry Nuala, I’m with you - SMR rules. I’ll get to work on securing him the “yoof vote”.
[37] Have a little compassion, TB… by her own admission she’s lost her Daddy…
41 Julian H. See my 30 - Mal is on at 3.20pm. - It’s a toss up between Mal and Columbo on Channel 5 ….. has Mal got a dirty mac
Nuala, championing lost causes on pb.com is just fine. After all, there are many LD and even UKIP posters who are made to feel welcome…
But a lack of ‘robustness’…now that’s a little more serious…
Hunky dinky dunky slams Tory councils over their reluctance to host gay civil partnership ceremonies. The miniature for Rutland says such an attitude will simply reinforce the view that the party is outmoded and will lose votes in the towns and cities.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4304278.stm
Mr Kendrick, I apologise, I am not usually so sensitive. Today is Sir Malcolm’s big opportunity to shine and please forgive me if I am a little more tense than usual.
Nuala, no need to apologise on my account.
For tension, a neck and shoulder massage helps.
- 45, Jack, Perish the thought but Andrea may actually be doing some studying
but when he gets back, he can add the Polish PM designate to the leader of Bromley Council on his list of love….
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1178757
Mr Kendrick I tend to find tension brought on by bright lights as I am prone to migrain. Staring at the screen for too long also brings them on.
48 John O. No. Andrea is buying his costumes as the nightime host of PB.com TV …. all in the best possible taste
However I doubt that there’ll be many Christmas cards winging their way from Milan to Warsaw this year ….. probably made up though from the loony tunes in the Cornerstone Group !!
David Kendrick - All new leaders are divisive. The question is whether the divide is permanent - Which of the possible “leaders” that the Tories are about to elect will cause the greatest number of members/supporters to leave the party or stop considering themselves as Tories. Conversly which will bring in new members/supporters
For what it is worth My guess (which can never be tested) would be:
Davis Lose 10% Gain 5%
Clarke Lose 25% Gain 35%
Cameron Lose 0% Gain 10%
Fox Lose 5% Gain 0%
Rifkind Lose 0% Gain 0%
IF (big IF) I am right and the Tories are rational then it should be between Cameron and Clarke.
“Hunky dinky dunky slams Tory councils over their reluctance to host gay civil partnership ceremonies. ”
In Brent North and Hertsmere, the public talk of little else.
Icarus - you also have to factor in the “Millionaire Effect” - which of the party leaders would cause the coffers to empty and/or swell to net gain or loss as donors got the hump?
On a related note, the blog discusses the potential for Tory revival offered by Cornerstone.
52 Sean. You’re correct. However its’s the drip drip effect of these stories.
1. Councils banning gay ceremonies.
2. Slough deputy Mayor “guillotining” disabled children.
3. Ann Wintertons latest outburst etc etc
Also as a Conservative why do you want the state interfering in the bedroom !
54. Whilst it might not be a talking point in some places it does cause concern and offence in others. Many gay conservative voters are put off actually voting Conservative as they appear anti-gay. Maybe not many in Hertsmere, but in Blackpool, Brighton, Hove, Gtr Manchester etc enough.
Tabman OK re money - Cameron must be most attractive (and perceived as worth buying for the long term), Clarke will piss off the Eurohaters but may well atract quieter business people who want even closer links to a bigger Europe to expand their markets. Does Davis have any pull with the moneybags??
Re Cornerstone, which blog? - surely a Cornerstone faces two ways (at rightangles to each other) - is that what they meant to imply. I thought they wanted a pure Conservative party unsullied by the danger of actually ever getting power.
Wonderful - If the Tory Party spends its time worrying about who does what to who then it will end up as relevant as the Church.
49 - is there a place in Printz’s darkened room for you, Nuala? You might recover in time for Sir Malcolm’s speech.
Re Jack’s favourite candidate: Oops! Ken - Don’t mention the Euro!
I rather liked the Indy’s cartoonist’s take on recent leadership events: http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00103/cartoon031005_103627b.jpg
Icarus - click on the link on my name.
56 - see also this re the Moneybags.
56 Icarus. Cornerstone blog at analretentive.com and totaltossers.co.uk .
55 jeffh. Agreed. It’s the general flow of Tory anti-gay rhetoric that leaves middle class professionals unmoved and dents Conservative prospects in seats now occupied by the Lib Dems and Labour, more so in University seats.
59 - see this for the full cartoon - much more pertinent!
[54] but Jack… the Tories ARE the socially Conservative party, and that means that most of them DO, and always will, stand for certain societal norms. If you want the state to stay out of what people do in the bedroom then you are, by definition, taking a Socially Liberal position. It is this fundamental mismatch between Liberal positions and the Conservative party that lies at the root of the nervous breakdown of the Tories since the time of Mrs. Thatcher.
It is not fashionable to speak of governing ideologies in the UK political system, and all of the Conservative Leadership candidates are blurring their ideological positions, but until any new leader can articulate a coherrent position, either Conservative or Liberal, then the party will continue its drift. The same battle is going on amongst the Liberal Democrats, but here the battle is Liberalism versus Social Democracy. In my oppinion whoever articulates Liberalism in the clearest is going to win- and given the influence of the Elderly and the Edward Leigh faction amongst Tories, I still beleive that it will be the Liberal Democrats (the clue is in the name) rather than the Conservatives the ends up as the inheritors of the Liberal Mantle. However we watch with interest the struggle inside the Conservatives- and yes, the result might be greater closeness between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives in the future.
Jack [61] - “Cornerstone” are proposing directly elected sherriffs - how can you resist :lol:?
59 Tabman. I didn’t hear too much talk of the Euro at Chuck’s conference !!
BTW is it true that “The Liberal” magazine was banned from sale at your conference
because it was full of anti Charlie chatter ?
I’d ban it because it’s full of stupor inducing crap (sic) !!
65 - so that was you on the front row dropping tofu crumbs onto your beard and sweater? You’ll have to get a better disguise next time!
63 - James O - agreed - the Apollo blog argues exactly this point; the Tories need to stake out a distinctive manifesto for themselves rather than indulge in half-hearted liberalism that none of them truly believe in anyway. It would engender a much greater degree of interest in the electorate and offer a truly engaging contest in 2009/10.
63 James O. Agreed. But it then makes me whince when I hear the Tories talk of less government and red tape and the “family” as if gay people come from outer space and don’t belong to families themselves. If the British Conservative decide to ape the American Republicans they’ll stay in opposition for a few more generations !
There are plenty of conservative parties in Europe who are more socially liberal and succeed.
64 IA. The Sheriff of Nottingham - Tabman
67 - Greetings from sunny Spain everyone!
Tabman - The manifesto Cornerstone are proposing would be electoral suicide and a gift to Labour and the Lib Dems. Its not going to happen. As a socially-liberal Tory with absolutely no interest in voting for another party, I think you underestimate the number of people in the party who do not find that inconsistent with being a big ‘C’ Conservative.
68 - “I’ll get you, Jack W!
69 - Max, 40% of the population didn’t vote last time - perhaps there’s a large number of social conservatives unappetised by the liberal fare on offer waiting to be tempted? Can you afford to take that risk, given that real liberals will always look more authentic than the pale blue version?
70 Tabman. Not if I don’t get you first !!
http://www.mvps.org/st-software/Movie_Collection/images/5258f.jpg
69 Max. Look, you bimble of to Spain and the Jam Tarts lose their 100% record
63 - “the Tories ARE the socially Conservative party”
67 - “half-hearted liberalism that none of them truly believe in anyway”
I must take issue with this. If no one in the Party believes in liberalism then why is it an issue at all? The Tory Party always APPEARS socially Conservative but behind the scenes the majority of Tories are instictively anti-government-interference, whether that interference be of a social or financial nature. True, there are those in the Party with a social agenda (of God knows what - “tradition”, “family values”, worst of all “a return of decency” bla bla bla) and they are in conflict with those who support liberalism all of kinds.
It seems to me that the Tories have a consensus on economic liberalism but are too scared to voice social liberalism (which some of their ranks oppose), whilst the Lib Dems are exactly the other way around.
The problem with the Conservatives is not that we are socially conservative per se - on the contrary, most people in the country recognise the value of the family, believe in British traditions, are skeptical of certain applications of human rights legislation, want stricter immigration controls and would reduce the time limit for abortions.
The real problem stems from the fact that we are perceived as “nasty”. Anti-gay rhetoric, anti-immigrant campaigns and calling for hanging and flogging only retrench that impression. Rather than abandoning it outright, we need to moderate its tone into a positive message (pro-family) rather than a negative one (anti-non-traditional lifestyles). Being in favour of one does not make you opposed to the other. For myself, I’d argue that supporting gay marriage is actually pro-family (=good) since once you acknowledge that gay people are full and equal members of society there is no reason why they ought be excluded from the positive benefits of a stable family unit.
72 - so are you subliminally coming out as a Fox supporter?
73 - “The Tory Party always APPEARS socially Conservative” - exactly, otherwise it would alienate its core vote and lose it to the Can’t Be Bothered Party or UKIP.
[68] The British Tories are quite different from the European Right (which they do not want to be part of anyway). For many years they set themselves up as “The European Democrats” in the Euro Parliament, and this reflected genuine ideological differences. It also explains why they are so uncomfortable in the European People’s Party (which Fox, amongst others, wants to leave). The Tories are not Christian Democrats, they are more like what the French used to call “independents”.
I am a Political Liberal-a Social and Economic Liberal- and I campaign for greater Liberalism, both inside my party (which remains a coalition between Liberals and Social Democrats) and beyond it. But the traditional coalitions of British politics: the Tory: Liberal-Conservative-Nationalist; and Labour: Liberal-Social Democrat-Socialist, are weaker than ever.
I think that Political Liberalism- in the sense of Hayekian-Popperian ideas that draw their inspiration ultimately from JS Mill- is winning the political argument overall. However, there is a battle going on for who inherits the Liberal mantle. I think that the Conservatives can not and Tabman is right, they must define themselves around Conservative core values, because they can not unite around Liberal ones. (BTW Tabbers, when are you down?).
75. Well in doing so it is alienating a huge section of 20-something voters. It also paints the (entirely incorrect) picture that economic liberalism is automatically paired with social conservatism.
it is the contradiction between promoting socially illiberal policies whilst pursuing fairly colourful prvate lives that has always made tory elected politicins seem false. The rank and file tend to walk the walk whereas Fox et al blatantly don’t. To elect someone as leader who cannot square the public and private parts of their life is hugely risky.
76. “I am a Political Liberal-a Social and Economic Liberal”
In which case, James, we should be on the same side. Just as my Party is having problems publically supporting social liberalism, your party is having problems advocating economic liberalism.
This is a message for Nuala.
Dear Nuala,
Forgive me for writing like this but I have been so taken by your support for Sir Malcolm in recent weeks that I would so much like to meet you. Those of us who see Sir Malcolm in the same light have something very special in common and I would so much like to have a face-to-conversation with you.
I know that this is totally improper but I have taken the liberty to pass my email address to Mr. Smithson should you wish to follow this up.
I really look forward to meeting you.
with best wishes,
All4Malcom.
79 - as am I. The question you have to ask, though, Julian, is who is more likely to be ultimately sucessful in making the change?
Trying to put on a non-partisan hat, I suspect we will end up with a situation where there is some movement towards social liberalism in your party and economic liberalism in ours, but we will have to see what the electorate deliver in 2009/10 to see if there’s any propsect of a more profound political shift.
[79] Well, we may well end up on the same side- my party is adressing Economic Liberalism far more seriously than the Conservatives are addressing (or, I beleive can address) Social Liberalism. The ghost of “Back to basics” is still not, to coin a phrase, laid. Anyway, perhaps Liberal Conservatives (not yet wholly oxymoronic) might now welcome a coalition, since it seems unlikely that they wil have the whip hand inside the Conservative party, even were that party to gain a majority post Blair/Brown…
80 - Shouldn’t you Tories abandon your keyboards and get up to Blackpool if you’re after some face-to-face matchmaking?
James O - have emailed you re coming down.
[74] The real problem stems from the fact that we are perceived as “nasty”. Anti-gay rhetoric, anti-immigrant campaigns and calling for hanging and flogging only retrench that impression. Rather than abandoning it outright, we need to moderate its tone into a positive message (pro-family) rather than a negative one (anti-non-traditional lifestyles).
But this is a Socially Conservative position. It is not a presnetational issue, it is fundamental ideological principle. The Conservatives can not pretend to be Liberal of any stripe if this is their position.
80. What about me?
James O/Tabman - maybe we should start our own Party then. Do you agree that AHM should be Leader?
James O - can I ask you what may sound like a very odd question? Are you 24, very tall, black and from south east London? I assume not, there must be many James Os in the world; would be quite a coincidence though.
Btw, did anyone else see that PB.com got a brief mention on BBC Breakfast News this morning?
86 - Julian, most certainly not AHM - there should be full hustings! Otherwise there’s be nothign to bet on
Have a look at one or two of our Blog articles for some discussion around this subject.
James O is a fine chap and is many things, but tall, black and 24 aren’t amongst them
80 All4Malcolm. What do you think this site is a Rifkind Lonely Hearts Club !! If it goes on like this it’ll become a Tory Knocking Shop
In any case Nuala is simply playing hard to get between myself and the Sheriff of Nottingham !
75 Sheriff. There’s as much chance of me supporting Fox as there is of Friar Soames woofing down a platter of tofu burgers and singing “it’s raining men”
- None
As predicted here last week, (well sort of ;))the repellent Sun comic duly poured out its pullulating tosh against KC under the banner of ‘Drop the Dead Donkey’. That should be worth a 2-3% increase in support from Tory members :).
(Of course I didn’t actually buy the vile rag…just had an illicit sneak, courtesy of Mr. Sainsbury’s.. :))
84 Tabman. You are Leslie Crowther and I claim my £5K
I’m a bit confused about the poll in today’s Telegraph.
The headline refers to Tory members but in the story the numbers quoted are for All voters and Tory voters.
Can anyone clarify? Is this a new poll of Tory members or not?
87. Ha, thought so Tabman. I don’t remember the (as described) James O I went to school with being quite so politically involved. I think he went to study medicin or something.
88. I’m going to have to steal that line off you (Friar Soames…). Colleagues wondering why I’m laughing at, ahem, spreadsheets.
Is All4Malcolm Crispin Blunt?
89 John O. I’m surprised the “Sun” has held of for so long. I think it clearly shows that NuLab is worried about our Ken. And of course Rupee’s euroscepticism make Edward Leigh appear a full blooded intergrationist.
87 - “James O is a fine chap and is many things, but tall, black and 24 aren’t amongst them”
Nor is being from South East London. But other than that it’s an easy mistake to make
86 - what was said about the site on the news?
[86] Err… Short, Scottish (so pale blue) and never been to South East London. (Oh wait, maybe a party in Lewisham, if that counts).
As for AHM as Leader- hmm… the bill for tweed suits could blow the party budget.
92 Julian. Yes, the Honourable Member for Mid(rift) Sussex is one of my favourite characters. A vast wasteland of conservative prandial indulgence and not a ryeveta to be seen
….. and long may he scoff !
95. I was in a state of semi-consciousness (it was around 6.45am), still almost convinced that Keira Knightley was in the house, so I may have got it wrong.
However, I believe that when talking about the Tory leadership the presenter said (to paraphrase) “According to the website Political Betting dot com David Davis is the favourite at 1/2…”. There was then a graphic showing the contenders’ prices. No graphic for pb.com but I’m 80% certain she mentioned it.
[89] I know we have said it before but I still love the description of Soames former girlfriend : “Making Love to Nick was like having a wardrobe fall on you…with the key still in it” :LOL:
Interesting image Jack…
[100] Obviously “from” Soames girlfriend…
OMG! Shock ‘o’ shocks. Apparently, according to this weeks Spectator, DD is set to appoint Andrew Mitchell as Party Chairman (reisnging Maude to the bakcbenches again) and then … Derek Conway as Chief Whip. Looks like I’m voting for “anyone-but-DD” then!
99 - excellent. I was hitting snooze for the third time at that point in the morning.
92 - It’s a poll of “all voters”, “Conservative voters”, “potential Conservative voters”, and members. So yes it is a membership poll.
102 - Well, according to Peter Oborne’s ‘imagination’
102. If true that really would be depressing.
99. The graphic had ‘Tory Leaders’ and on the next line ‘from politicalbetting.com’ then the odds for the five contenders. Rita Chakrabati mentioned the site at least once.
99 Julian, Rita C mentioned it on BBC and overlooked to mention
LF @ 10/1 by accident (or Freudian slip heh Jack !!)
Their page also had MR at 50’s as opposed to 33’s here.
Cheers
102 Tone. The Conservative MPs will be thrilled (not) by a Conway appointment as Chief Whip. I wonder if DD becomes leader how long it’ll take for IDS coup scenario to play out !! - 18 months, 2 years !! …… we could be hear again in October 2007
…. not that I’d wish that 
104. Thanks a lot. What are the figures for members?
The Davis 48 Clarke 44 looks like Tory voters.
110 - no, members
“Making Love to Nick was like having a wardrobe fall on you…with the key still in it”
Did she really say that, or is it an urban legend? If she did, it was remarkably ungallant (but very funny).
The Davis Clarke Five- Would explain why the whole contest is just “Bits and Pieces” and that “Everyone Knows” that they “Try too Hard”, so that I am not sure that “I Like it Like That”, in fact the whole thing is just “Reeling and a rockin”
112 - well, it could have been worse: at least she mentioned the key.
Maude - Why we lost “values” . “Only one third share our values and two out of three think we are out of touch”
114 - If it was an old-fashioned wardrobe then it would have been a pretty impressive key.
Maude - “We must confront uncomfortable truths” - We are not the natural home of immigrants, the towns and the young, and we are too often seen as the “countyside party”
“We must change the way we behave, the way we talk …… we will fail in our mission …. if we do not we’ll lose ….”
“We have no god given right to survive …… we’ll have to earn the priviledge to serve …… let the journey begin ! ”
A pretty sombre start to the conference …. but correct !
So she may actually have intended it as a compliment then?
116 alex. Some wardrobes have several knobs !!!!!!!!!!!
Just watched Francis Maude’s speech - received in silence (probably resentful rather than respectful). I counted about two rounds of applause, with the standing ovation at the end very half-hearted and dutiful. I liked the way the BBC cameras panned round on glum faces in the Empress Ballroom.
117 - what is the audience reaction looking like?
[118] A Compliment!!!!!!! A Bl***y Wardrobe falls on you and this is the ulitmate erotic experience???… Clearly La vice anglaise remains the preferred option in certain (Conservative) circles…
121 book value. Some looked shell shocked, others perhaps resentful.
Lamont says it was more of a “backroom speech” , too stark !
120, 121 - great minds…
122 - “A Bl***y Wardrobe falls on you and this is the ulitmate erotic experience???”
It’s probably what they go to Blackpool for - so they can stay in rickety hotels where this kind of thing regularly happens.
[12] never see the attraction of Blackpool myself- but if being attacked by furniture floats your boat..
120 A very bad reaction from a ‘reformers’ point of view.
Setting aside whether it is right or wrong, it was far far too ‘in your face’ as will have pushed people away from the message.
If was like TM’s ‘Nasty Party’ effort of a couple of years ago.
It isn’t the message (wrongly or rightly) that members want to hear.
Dinky Hunky Dunky says Maude speech “dead right” . He’s to speak later - “If half the MP’s hate half the country, why should we be surprised if they hate us.”
Re. 125, book value, yes, I’ve heard Blackpool is crap for accomodation (though I’ve only been to Conference in Brighton, so I can’t speak from personal experience).
I remember Edwina Currie had a real go at Blackpool in her first novel, A Parliamentary Affair.
127 Tory Boy. It’s called honesty, stark or not. There’s no point the Tories becoming the Ostrich Party.
128 Jack, Dinky’s in Berkow Country to a vast section of the Party.
It’s a complete dialougue of the deaf.
Anything he now says has exactly the reverse effort/reaction to what he is looking for.
The way this is begining to shape up is quite exciting, I’m begining to suspect that something seminal is going to appear from this week.
130 Your opinion Jack, I don’t begrudge you yours.
127 - I’m not so sure at least yet. I think we need to wait a little longer before getting an accurate ’sense’ of the mood. Perhaps, Alastair Matlock and others actually present will be to help. I’ll be interested in how Duncan is received - if he goes too far - and I fear he might, then he could cause real damage as well as being booed. Streuth! Is Teresa May our Patricia Hewitt… ;(
[130] They don’t want to hear it. Why should they? All this Liberal stuff is nothing to do with them- Liberal Tories: this a grim reaction indeed.
127 - If 102s prediction of the possible change of status for Maude is correct though, it doesn’t really matter that much whether he hacks off the conference hall or not.
I didn’t see the speech but was it the kind one would have applauded anyway if one had been so inclined?
131 Tory Boy ” It’s a complete dialogue of the deaf .”
And there lies your problem …. most of the country don’t want to hear what the Tories say. You’ve got to change that or you’ll stay in your box !
136 Better being in a box you believe in than pursuing a platform you don’t.
Anyway Jack, you’re not getting me at it, I’m going out now to pick
up the trouble & saucepan.
135 Stephen. No it wasn’t. It was an honest, raw analysis of the electoral hole the Tories are in . Maude mentioned Bristol West, Leeds North West and Cambridge as tokens of the problem - former Tory seats that they are now in third place - all to the Lib Dems.
Mal to speak in about 10 minutes.
“It’s called honesty, stark or not.”
A bit like Gerald Ratner’s famous comments then.
137 Tory Boy. Yes, but for too many Tories the box you choose will be a political coffin ! ….. and I don’t want to be a pallbearer.
just read Maude’s speach and there is nothing I do not agree with in there. The Party does not need to suddenly become pro one group or the other, but stop giving the impression of dosapproving of certain sections. The traditional happy family is a long gone myth, people can live their lives as they wish, most of the party agree, coz most are pretty normal people - need shadow cabinet to say it and to shut up the old swivelled eyed faction.
139 Sean. Yes, it’s that bad !! Didn’t you realize ?
Oh my god ….. Peter Stringfellow saying one more heave !!!! presumeably in a thong
Gerald Ratner’s comments didn’t exactly do him, or his company, much good.
Nobody responds to, or respects, self-flagellation, either within the party, or the wider electorate.
My feeling on this is usually shown by the words “washing, “dirty” and “public”. There may be much truth in what Maude has said, but surely there are more internal ways of getting this across than at the publicly-broadcast conference. I thought the point of these things were to big yourselves up (and get drunk).
Quite. Can you imagine someone like Ronald Reagan giving a speech to the Republicans along these lines in the late seventies?
143 Sean. I’d have to say that there’s the odd Tory who’s not amiss to a bit of flagualation …. least said I think !!!!
This conference is your Year Zero …. seize it !! or lose badly again
Rifkind - “Tony Blair like Bill Clinton without the sex ….. as far as we know ”
Decent speech so far. Cheering the faithful up after Maude’s necessary dose of the Ratners !
More than the odd one I should think, Jack.
The problem with speeches of this type (and doubtless the speech that Alan Duncan will deliver) is that they do nothing (a)to motivate party workers or supporters or (b) to appeal to the wider electorate.
My point about Reagan is I think a good one. He motivated his supporters. Francis Maude demotivates them.
You can hardly take the audience reaction to Maude’s speech as an indication that they didn’t want to hear it. They’re hardly going to cheer it to the rafters!
You can take it as a reaction to what they thought about it though.
The most famous self-flagellator in British political history must be Gladstone… he drew a little picture of a whip against each relevant day in his diary.
[147] Contrast with Maude is interesting, and working to Rifkind’s advantage. I think the evidence is that the Tories will shoot the Messenger- Whoever takes over will fire Maude after this speech (too much of the Teresa May self flagellation). I mean he is right and all that, but this is not an audience that wants to hear- I SAID IT IS NOT AN AUDI.. Oh never mind- just switch on yer appliance.
Rifkind - “Idealogy has no place in the Tory party …. we’re about principles and pragmatism .”
Faithful cheering Mal on , they want him to succeed, but but , perhaps as a favourite uncle and not the Daddy !
Overall a good speech, but not a backmarker breaker !
102 - I very much doubt that Davis has made any such commitment to posts post leadership election - in fact I have it on good authority that he has made NO SUCH pledge at all to anyone!
On the liberalism thread - I am an economic and social liberal, leavened with a strong dose of national pride, monarchism and historical perspective. I find that the Conservative party most closely reflects these views. IF the party were ever to become strongly socially Conservative I would probably have to consider another political home. But that would also apply to a lot of people I know. The virtue of conservatism is that while it may not ape the current fashion, it is usually “conserving” the prevailing view held by a section of society and therefore is flexible to movement over time. My hope is that we can move to a position where what happens in private between consenting adults is no business of the state. And where the Conservative Party is not seen as anti any section of society for the choices they make in their private lives. The state should also not actively penalise anyone for those choices. However, that is not to say that the state cannot reward those who do show commitment to each other or raising a family. So I would support a married couples allowance or child benefit, provided that it applies to all who make a legal or religious commitment to each other. But I would not support a situation where gay couples are not able to access those benefits IF they make the same commitment. Why also should a gay couple who commit not be able to pass property to their partner on death, just as a married straight couple can?
The point is not that the Conservative Party should or ever will become a “champion” of gay rights but that it settles comfortably into a non judgemental attitude of law making. This may still take some time but the progress in the last 10 years has been huge. For those that say the party should change - IT HAS ALREADY - and it should continue to. But it should remain true to the basic principles of a smaller less-intrusive state, with a welfare safety net, strong law and order and defence policies. We must have and convey a vision of how Britain will be better under the Conservatives. How the poor will be made richer, even if the very rich get even richer. We must show how local people make better decisions than bureacrats in WHitehall or Regional Assemblies. And we must revitalise local government with Councillors who have power to make real decisions but are more in touch with local people.
A tall order I know but not impossible.
Thats all for now folks!
LOL at Andrew Neil. (I paraphrase) We only put a couple of phones in to take your calls but we didn’t realise anyone was actually watching!
[154] Yes, the Conservatives do modify their positions over time- otherwise they would be completely reactionary. However, I think that you are asking too much if you expect a socially conservative Party to be non-judgemental as regards anything to do with gay rights. Completely agree with your position, don’t think that this is the majority view in Blackpool
148 Sean. Yes Reagan motivated, but the Republicans in 79 were in far better shape than the Tories are now ….. and didn’t face a strong third force. If you fail to seize the opportunity in the coming weeks you’ll face another drubbing in 2009.
Very impressive speech by Rifkind, much as I would expect. He diagnoses the problem with the Conservative party and prescribes the correct cure - sadly I don’t think that he is the appropriate physician. It’s too late in the day for the needed boost to his own leadership prospects. Nevertheless, he will make a solid and decent addition to any future Conservative Cabinet.