Who’ll benefit from the drugs question?
October 14th, 2005-
Is the main impact just to raise Cameron’s profile?
Following David Cameron’s appearance on Question Time last night and reports that the Mail Group is “seeking to dig up the dirt” on him the big question before the crucial first ballot is who all this is helping and who is being hurt?
Watching the Shadow Education Secretary’s response on Question Time last night and the reaction of the audience I could not help but think that the main impact of all of this is to raise his profile. Those clips with the loud applause will be shown time and time again this morning.
We are told that only weeks ago he had a “name recognition” factor below 10% - well that’s certainly changed and being hounded on the hard drugs issue is giving him a platform to show how he performs when the going gets tough.
Certainly there’s been no rush away from Cameron on the betting markets and he continues to trade at prices that rate his chances of success at nearly 60%.
-
His full acknowledgement that certainly he did stray in his youth covers him if some story does appear. He’s not going to be caught out telling lies or covering up.
If the issue does develop over the weekend into something that does hurt him which of his rivals will benefit? On the face of it that should be Ken Clarke - the only other candidate who the polls rate highly as a potential election winner. But Clarke has lost so much ground this weeks it’s hard to see even this helping his position.
David Davis remains almost untouched either way unless his camp become associated with spreading the allegations in some way. But what about Liam Fox who has started to see some traction into his campaign? He could be seen as the one candidate who had more chance of stopping Cameron in the membership ballot. That 8/1 price tag might just be worth a small punt.
Leadership Betting
Best betting exchange prices; Cameron 0.8/1: Davis 2.25/1: Clarke 13.5/1: Fox 9/1
Best bookmaker prices; Cameron 4/6: Davis 11/5: Clarke 6/1: Fox 8/1
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
A cynic could almost say that the Cameron camp started all this.
I think if the Tories pick Cameron - good luck to them. But it will give them very little room for manouvre on Home Affairs type issues. If they try to outmuscle Labour in the hard on crime stakes - especially drugs then I think you might here little sniffing sounds from the Labour back benchers. But to keep the Tories together he would need to keep the right happy - and he can’t do that with a more honest stance on personal behaviour. The problem with his answer is that it makes him look guilty of something. If he hadn’t taken anything he could just say ‘no’, and if he had he could say ‘yes, and it goes to show that taking drugs doesn’t make you evil, and it goes to show that we need to have a proper debate about drug policy in this country, because I am now standing here as an articulate and intelligent human being with a great deal to say on the world’. His line shows that he is a weak politician, who stuck in a party that is unable to engage with Britain how it is today.
Paul 2. I totally disagree. I thought that Cameron’s performance last night was impressive - not just on the drugs issues but the other questions as well. It came from Stanley in County Durham which is not obvious Tory country - yet what he was saying seemed to resonate with large parts of the audience.
The way he’s able to put arguments together coherently and without hesitating is extraordinary and puts him in a separate league from the inarticulate David Davis. Cameron also looks the sort of person that people like.
He would pulverise Gordon Brown and only Tony Blair will be able to deal with him.
The line ‘politicians should be allowed a private life’ works for me. A man’s past is his experience–it seems to me entirely reasonable for him to give a flavour of it, rather than chapter and verse.
In office, when we the taxpayers are paying him, it feels different.
Is DC’s line is that ‘it would be easier and simpler for me to tell you exactly what I did, and when, but I won’t as I think thats the wrong thing to do. Do you only want politicians who are like trappist monks?’ I’m comfy with that as well, though clearly the Mail thinks otherwise. But that could be on the ‘bicycle management thoery’.
If he sell that line, I reckon his sales skills are well up to the mark…
I understand that more MPs will declare for Fox today.
I agree that the drugs story is all publicity for Cameron, but it is also surely going to have some MPs thinking that really little is known about him.
What price Fox or Cameron winning now and Davis taking over like Howard, a year before the GE?
in “The Economist”, this morning : “If the Tories want to be liked, they will pick David Cameron”. and “the party must choose. Mr Fox lacks stature. Mr Davis is short of the charm he needs to shed the party’s charge of nastiness. Mr Clarke, virtually absent from politics for the past eight years, lacks a claim to lead—and renewal is hardly the word for a politician who has yet to show that his policies and persona have moved beyond the 1990s.
Which is why the party should elect Mr Cameron. True, at 39 his moment has come too early. Although he has years of experience as a political adviser, he has much to learn about politics in the front line. But he has intelligence, charisma and (it seems) integrity. And he alone has shown that he has come to terms with New Labour—that he knows which parts of it voters like and which to jettison. That makes him best placed to give the Tories hope and Britain an opposition.”
will this endorsement matter?
5 - I wouldn’t put stolen money on that one!
I’m wondering whether there might be some mileage on a bet on Fox? Never underestimating the malignity of our press, particularly the Mail….. Suppose some journalist decides to ask Cameron if he behaved inappropriately with a pony behind the bike sheds at Eton and Cameron quite rightly refuses to answer? It’s easy to see how his leadership bid might unravel. And without Cameron, Fox’s odds should increase very quickly.
The first ballot is going to give a big pointer to how the land lies - as well as being the last ballot for one contender. What is the feeling for what is good and what is bad for candidates? My take:
David Davis -
Superb: 78+ votes
Good: 73-77 votes,
Acceptable: 67-72
Disappointing: <66 votes, 2nd place close behind
Disastrous: 2nd place
David Cameron-
Superb: First place in the ballot
Good: 52+ votes, less than 12 votes behind Davis, Clarke eliminated
Acceptable: 45+ votes, less than 22 votes behind Davis, Clarke eliminated
Poor: 3rd place to Fox
Disastrous: 3rd place to Clarke (or, of course, 4th place and out).
Fox-
Superb: First place above Davis
Good: 2nd place, within 12 votes of Davis
Acceptable: Firm 3rd place, Davis less than 25 votes ahead.
Poor: 3rd place by a whisker over 4th, Clarke eliminated.
Disastrous: 4th and out.
Clarke -
Superb: 2nd place, Cameron eliminated, more than 45 votes.
Good: 2nd place above Cameron.
Acceptable: 3rd place (just behind Fox) with Cameron eliminated.
Poor: Trailing far behind Cameron in 3rd place, Cameron pressing Davis for first.
Disastrous: 4th and out.
Poor:
Problem with the Daily Evil is they haven’t actually done any decent ivestigative journalism in decades.
I fully expect a “Cameron leadership would make house prices plummet” headline as their best effort.
If anyone will find anything it’s Murdoch’s sunday effort.
Peter 5. This idea that Cameron is an unknown is ridiculous. He has been at the heart of the Tory party in both Government and opposition for a decade and a half having a much greater influence than just about anybody. When this contest was first announced in May Cameron quickly became second favourite behind Davis and nobody was commenting then.
All four of them have weaknesses: Cameron is too young but not that inexperienced; Fox too right-wing for popular appeal; Clarke might be well known but there is an awful lot of baggage there; and Davis has always been happier in backroom roles and is not equipped when the spotlight is full on him -as we have seen.
I don’t think the Conservatives have comprehended what Cameron will try to do to the party if he becomes leader. Many seem to think that all they are committing to is a nice, presentable young leader and nothing much else will change. They think all they need to do to change their image is to change their leader and the public will come flocking towards their “popular” policies. If they think that, and if they think Cameron thinks that, then they will be sorely disappointed IMO.
11.”He has been at the heart of the Tory party in both Government and opposition for a decade and a half having a much greater influence than just about anybody.”
and is this a good thing? If he had so much influence, it means he was responsible for 3 big defeats.
Ten. Don’t know Murdoch wants anyone but Clarke so I doubt he’ll unleash his hounds on the others.
Have to say Cameron mightily impressed me, despite how tough things got and unpleasant, and whatever he felt inside, as Portillo pointed out later he still kept smiling not in a nasty way but with natural charm and won the audience around. Know who it reminded me of? Blair? No a superb politician but never gives the impression of being a natural, no Cameron reminded me of that original Charmer and good ol boy Bill Clinton. Touch wood I am beginning to get a Very good feeling about a Cameron Leadership.
I said yesterday before the page was wiped that I am sure DC has bnothing to hide on this. last night he was totally cool, in a way that was strangely re-assuring. No question that he’s done other things, though and while the papers are busy digging for dirt he knows they won’t find they are as Mike says, elevating him. Instead of ‘who?’ most people -even on this site- are saying ‘imagine if he becomes Prime Minister…’ did they ever say that about Hague? Or IDs?
12.”I don’t think the Conservatives have comprehended what Cameron will try to do to the party if he becomes leader”
Alex, I’m not sure Labourites have comprehended what Blair has done to Labour yet.
14.”he still kept smiling not in a nasty way but with natural charm and won the audience around. Know who it reminded me of?”
I’ve mistaken him a couple of times for Peter Mandelson. I’m not sure if it’s a good thing for cameron!
11 - “This idea that Cameron is an unknown is ridiculous. He has been at the heart of the Tory party in both Government and opposition for a decade and a half having a much greater influence than just about anybody”
Mike you really are getting a bit carried away here. I suspect “unknown” refers anyway more to his prior media profile and consequent lack of scrutiny. And nobody really knows what he thinks - he has disowned most things which might provide an indicator (such as the last manifesto).
If I were a Tory I would vote for Davis and sob quietly. As I’m a LibDems I think I’ll just crack open the champagne this evening.
I have a collection of Tory leaflets which seem to take a rather different line on the drugs issue and other personal matters to Mr Cameron… I’m taking my Cameron profit as I don’t think it is a Tory no-brainer any more.
But - 14 - Bill Clinton “never inhaled”.
16 - true
This whole ‘drugs’ episode is deeply depressing and is a confirmation of the modernisers analysis. Everyone is being drawn to focus on a pretty small part of the policy spectrum as if it was the thing on which the next election will be won or lost. This kind of approach is what has damaged the Tory brand for far too long…
11 - Mike, can you name any party leader in modern history who will have spent less time in Parliament before becoming their party’s leader?
Now, that might not matter… as you say, he has a lot of backroom experience, and he may prove to be an exceptional leader regardless (though he would be a much better leader in 10 years time). But it’s entirely fair to say he’s a gamble on the unknown.
Twenrty but Bill had that almost magical ability to get the American public to forgive him almost anything with his Charm and charisma, touch wood I think Cameron may have the same talent and ability.
11 - Mike I think you will struggle to have found 1/20 of the public recognising David Cameron prior to two weeks ago so I think it’s perfectly reasonable to describe Cameron as an unknown. Not in the party obviously but CERTAINLY in the public at large.
People generally DON’T know opposition politicians as they have no impact on their life. The reason KC is the known one is he was in government for over a decade and was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Believe me asking a member of the public to name obscure members of the number ten team even would get you blank looks.
23 - pitt the younger?
sorry - modern hostory d’oh
For reasons that I’ve never understood, a few politicians can get away with anything short of being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
Paddy Ashdown, though.
I am going to say Cameron goes out on ballot 1. Davis knows that its game over if Cameron gets through as he knows he would lose to Cameron in the members vote. He also knows he would be competitive against Clarke or Fox. If the Davis camp are sensible they should divert a few MPs to each of Clarke and Fox in Round 1 to ensure Cameron gets eliminated as a matter of priority, even if it seems to show a loss of momentum. They either do that or they might as well throw in the towel.
29 - he’d been in Parliament slightly longer (MP in 1983, leader in 1988). And I’m sure our Tory contributors will point out that being Leader of the Opposition is entirely more serious…
On QT last night Ann Leslie said “The Daily Mail is the only real opposition to Blair’s government” (which Muriel Gray responded “God help us all, then” - a very apt response!)
It makes you wonder, considering the Guardian article, if the Daily Mail prefers being the self styled ONLY opposition to the Government than the Tory party regaining power.
30 - Andy they dont have the spares to divert!! Cameron will be strong second and we dont know whether Clarke or Fox will be third. It would be suicide for Davis to try to divert ANY of his support IMHO.
Alex absolutely right - The event with Cameron I went to has now been written up in our modest local paper. All about how he is going to put up tuition fees - that doesn’t go down well with the young or their parents!!! So that’s the under 50 vote lost.
Agree he sounds good but the after Blair surely people will want to know about policies. I do not see rank and file Tories going willingly into a campaign promising no tax cuts (till the end of the parliament if every thing goes OK) Compulsory pensions savings (NI up), higher tuition fees and tolls on Motorways.
28 - It is odd, I think people and the media just make there mind up that they like someone and are willing to let them off with certain offences. Its in the same way that very few politicians could get away with working for BAT. Blair used to have it, but can you imagine if the Ecelstone affair had come to light now and not shortly after his election.
Again I was impressed with DC last night and even Muriel Gray (who normally hates anything and everything linked to the Tory party) wasn’t that hostile towards him.
Trouble with tactical voting Thirty is it can go horribly wrong. Look at the near elimination of IDS by one vote. Besides Davis is so weakened now he is vulnerable to all of them, and needs as impressive a performance amongst MP’s as he can muster to carry forward into the membership ballot, to be honest he would probably only have a chance of defeating Fox the membership were so unimpressed by Davis, but even then it maybe too close to call.
34. You forget, if Cameron is indeed trying to ape Blair then he will have picked up the trick of promising whatever you need to to win the election and then doing whatever you want afterwards….
25. I would be interested to see a poll asking people who are the most known politicians. I suppose that many people couldn’t recognize some Cabinet ministers too (for ex how many people are able to recognize Des Browne?)
3 - Countryman, this tends to back up my thesis that the Tories will do well in the more C1/C2 areas of the country picking up the authoritarian (Vino/Vimto) soft Labour vote. A pretence at social liberalism is n’t going to help them here.
8 - Roger, they don’t have bike sheds at Eton … Bentley Garages if you please
12 - alex agreed; see my comment to 3 above.
14 - until Clarke has been eliminated in the first round?
36 - Davis just has to get through and hope Cameron blows up. It’s out of his hands. His job is to provide a safe option just in case now.
(Imagine if they have Fox/Cameron in the final ballot and Cameron self-destructs. How ridiculous would they fell then!)
Cameron as Clinton- interesting idea (nonsense though). “It is always easy to impute/ unlikely virtues to the cute”.
Clinton was a scrapper who worked his way up from dire rural poverty to the Ivy League and Rhodes Scholarship. His “I feel your pain” may have seemed a bit phoney over here, but he was at least aware of what life was like at the sharp end. He also had substantial intellectual rigour in his political ideas. By contrast Cameron is more like either of the two Bushes- a child of considerable privilege. So far as his intellectual appoach to politics is concerned, he is not a policy wonk- he is all presentation. His speech to the conference was a perfect speech from a presentational point of view- all declarations and slogans. It is, however impossible to detect any bedrock of principle that sustains his arguement. Change as presentation will, soon enough, lead to Blairism- dubious policies entered into for solely presentational purposes- and I think that the British people are getting tired of that.
28. Sean, some politicians could get away even if they’re found with a dead girl and a live boy in the same bed!
34 - Rightly or wrongly I’m not convinced that people are that interested in policy above personality. I remember when IDS was leader that his supporters tried to argue that people would find his abject lack of presentational skills and complete lack of charisma a refreshing change from TB. It just didn’t materialise evn though IDS said some sensible enough things on policy (and continues to do so through his think tank.)
11 - Mike, I’m not a sensitive soul, but ridiculous is too strong. Agreed he is not quite as unknown as first appears. But he has never been put under serious scrutiny. Being second favourite to Davis when everyone expected Davis to wslk it is not the same thing.
29-31 And Ashdown was seen as a potential leader from before the time he entered Parliament (at least from the Llandudno Assembly in 1981 (IIRC)). (And had been positively vetted!)
Cameron’s performance on everything else but drugs was pretty strong last night. On drugs, I thought he had his backside kicked, with the whole panel offering him advice on how to handle the situation! He struggled to cope with the question in my opinion.
The problem here is that members of the public will, generally, expect the question “Have you ever taken drugs?” to be answered. Most people answer the question, from my experience, so why can’t he?
Robert
41. For Lord’s sake I was not comparing backgrounds only that ability some people have which is not restricted to one social class or background to absolutely naturally or at least apparently naturally charm an audience to get them almost willingly to forgive them almost any thing. Clinton had it, Cameron touch wood I hope also has it.
If Davis’s campaign really is terminally holed, what’s the best way for him to protect his long term interests? He could always pull out, endorse Ken Clarke and hope to take over after a one-term Ken premiership.
Forty Seven. If the unthinakble happened and Davis did not reach the final round, why not?
Andrea - I reckon Blair, Brown, Prescott, Blunkett then possibly Straw, Howard, Clarke,
After that I reckon most of the public would struggle. I always find it amazing how politicos think that the public are interested in MPs when they really aren’t
47-48 But I presume that many of his supporters think he is the best (least worst) opetion now, not necessarily in the future. I would have thought one of the selling points for Davis would be that you have him for five years and then someone younger (like Osborne).
34 - that’s not quite what i’m getting at (although it is related).
There is a revisionist history going around now (especially on the left of the Labour party) that many of the things Tony Blair did once he became leader were unnecessary concessions in the cause of getting elected. The argument is that they went too far, and all Labour really had to do was look like an alternative government with an electable leader and they would have swept to power.
One can already see the bones of this argument forming within the Tory party. They say that unlike Labour they do not need a “clause 4 moment” because their policies are popular, except when attached to the Tory brand. This is to completely misunderstand what the clause 4 battle was all about. Clause 4 was about the image of the Labour party, and showing they were no longer tied to narrow ideology when making policies. And the public had to be convinced that the majority of the Labour Party had bought into it, not just the leadership. In the same way Tory policies won’t become ‘popular’ just because they have an attractive leader. They will still be tainted by the Conservative brand, until there is a clear demonstration that they have accepted the need to change. (my guess is that Cameron will try to do this using some issue around candidate selection - something that is really irrelevant to government, and will be forgotten about come the election, but will clearly show that the party has changed.) I’m not sure, listening to what you hear Conservatives saying that they will be at all keen to go along with it. Because they don’t accept they need to change. But that is the package i believe they are choosing with Cameron.
It is not IMO the only route to Government. But it is the only one that has a real chance unless something goes very wrong for the Government. But if the party don’t realise what they are buying into then it could all end in tears.
49.”I always find it amazing how politicos think that the public are interested in MPs when they really aren’t ”
if we ask about the backbencher, I doubt somebody will recognize any of them (except us here!).
The former ministers are probably the most famous (Milburn, Short), the rest is probably largely unknown. They probably know about the existence of Glenda Jackson. The opposition? Maybe Widdy, Boris Johnson and George Galloway.
33 36 Sorry I have to disagree. I think there is enough in the tank. Davis has 66 declared. (I believe 2 of the 66 will actually back Clarke) I see another 6-8 in the undecideds for DD in the won’t/can’t say’s. Clarke/Fox should reach high 30’s on their own which means Cameron will around 43 or so. Davis should be able to swallow a first round vote of mid-high 50’s knowing that the MPs sent to initially help Clarke/Fox will coming running back in time for round 2. This would also give him the appearance of momentum even after an apparent initial ’setback’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4340240.stm
Makes a very interesting story …
45 Robert, perhaps you will then answer me this, why is it that no-one in the Cabinet is prepared to answer the question?
53 - Andy. Cameron will have more than 43.
54 - how much surgery and/or Botox has Joan Collins had?!
54. Is Joan Collins real? Is she able to open her mouth?
38 - Andrea, I’d definately recognise him but only because I was friends with his niece at school. She was really nice and not nearly as dull as her uncle!
57. As much as Cher, I think.
54 - Thanks for that Tabbers. Made my morning to see The Lady looking so well. I hope my friends have remembered to invite her to my ’surprise’ party!
61. No, Max, it’s more likely that they’ll send you a commie to sing “The Red Flag”
If DC does win, any thoughts on who would fill the top 3 jobs. Would it stay as it is now? The office of shadow home secretary will be interesting after all these allegations.
I posted this on May 7th this year - if the Tories are serious about winning power they will pick Cameron. He is the only candidate that could conceivably win a general election IMHO. Every sane Tory must know this in their heart of hearts. Up until last week I presumed the sane were still in the minority, but it appears not…so Cameron seems a shoe-in to me, assuming nothing too personal comes to the fore.
The comparison to Bill Clinton is preposterous. It was clear from the start that Clinton had something special. It’s only clear at the moment that Cameron shines in a very lacklustre field. Being better than IDS and Hague (possibly) doesn’t make him comparable to Clinton. I can understand the Tories desperation for a Messiah but if they continue this overhyping things are bound to end in tears. Remember Clintons speech to the Labour Party Conference? Can anyone seriously imagine Cameron creating that kind of electricity anywhere? At the moment a very untried Tony Blair is as optimistic as anyone can be
Having met Clinton and Cameron, I agree with Roger. The comparison is embarrassing and whoever made it needs to get a reality check. Cameron has more charisma than most Tories, but Clinton is in a league of his own…even more than TB (who has it in spades too). You know Clinton’s in the room before you see him.
49 - I would add Kennedy to the list of possibles too, or maybe that ginger bloke who talks funny and is with the other lot.
Having watched DC last night I find myself moving closer to supporting him, he performed well, had some passion, and the audience seemed to like him. If the only thing the Tories needed was good policies they would be in Gvt - polls showed people liked Tory policies - until they knew they were Tory policies. I think people might actually like/warm to whatever DC in such a way that they might just be ready to listen to the message rather than switching off.
The incomparable Robert Shrimsley – Todays FT
Cut out guide to the candidates:
DAVID CAMERON 39
Educated Eton, Oxford
What has he done? Well cannabis we think and who knows what else. We don’t know and he is keeping mum.
And in Politics? He made a super speech to his party conference
What will he do if he wins? Modernise the party. We’re not exactly sure how he’ll do it. It might involve smiling more. As to the rest he is keeping mum.
Upsides: Extensive experience in government
Downsides: It was with Norman Lamont.
Anything else? Did I mention that speech? Also was Michael Howard policy co-ordinator at last election.
Which policies did he co-ordinate? He’s keeping mum on that.
Who’s backing him? Jolly nice Conservatives, rich kids; old Etonians and those who supported Portillo in 2001.
Positives: Could be the Tory Toy Blair. Speaks almost as well as William Hague.
Negatives: Could be the Tory Toy Blair. Might lead the party almost as well as William Hague.
Greatest achievement to date: Well there was that speech.
Campaign chief: George Osborne.
His upsides: Extensive experience in government.
Cameron’s Catchphrase: What do I think about that George?
Best reason to back him: The other three candidates
Downsides: It was all for Douglas Hogg during the BSE crisis and then John Major.
Clinton is awesome. Thatcher has charisma too but David Cameron is pretty ordinary though he has more than Davis.
Davis has the charisma of an average provincial bank manager.
Roger 65 - I think you are wrong. This guy does create electicity and he seems to have wooed the MPs’ wives as well - according to this report. http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2085962005
Just look at what have we seen in the past two weeks. You cannot easily dismiss the biggest surge ever in any opinion poll rating according to Peter Kellner of YouGov. There’s also the way the betting markets switched and that Lundt research feature on Newnight might have been criticsed by some on here but it has been hugely influential.
49&67 - I’d add in Ming Campbell as well and probably some of the MP’s from Ulster (Adams, Paisley, McGuinness etc).
63. That is a difficult one, Cameron winning would guarantee Osborne in post methinks. The difficulty is in thinking about the other gr8 unknown Hague, his stature deserves one of the triumvirate positions but how to do it without narking whoever is there already…
56 Don’t Count on it. DC’s first round against KC and LF (even without Tactical Votes) won’t see him more than a few votes ahead of either of them. I’m not saying that the tactical votes coming down from DD will remove DC for certain but there is a good chance.
72. I suppose in Scotland Salmond is pretty known.
That Davis could come so close to becoming Tory leader shows what a shambles the party has become. He would be IDS all over again.
70 - David, I am sure there are several provincial bank managers lining up to sue you for such defamation!
72 - Yeah, some of the people in the Holyrood parliament would be better known than those at Westminster. Much to the annoyance of backbench Labour MP’s!
This guy does create electicity and he seems to have wooed the MPs’ wives as well.
Not sure that I would trust the judgement of someone who had willingly married a Tory Mp!
77 - True. What’s sad is that a number of people think David Davis is worth supporting as leader of their own party. They must all be mad.
79 - To be fair they may have got married before he went on to be an MP, but it still shows a lack of judgement…
78. Max, sadly my knowledge of MSPs is limited to Nicola Sturgeon! I couldn’t name others.
79. It would be even more interesting if they had “unwillingly” married Tory MPs. Bit of forced marriage here and there could be very damaging.
81 - and to be fair to the judgement of the wives, you’d have to question the judgement of the MPs in marrying them! Did you see the one who said “I’m not telling you!” to the BBC?
82. I’ve edited books on the Scottish Parliament and I’d walk past half of them in the street.
same with the Welsh Assembly. I guess Jack McConnell and Rhodri Morgan are known in their respective countries.
84. Tabman, don’t mock tory wives. We’re still anxiously wait to see Libdem’s wives and husbands!
Roger, as usual you have sidestepped my question. It’s OK for the Labour front bench to collectively refuse to answer questions on their own past drug habits but not the Tories?
Comparisons with peole like Blair and Clinton ought to be made when they were at the same stage of political newness. Clinton has bags of charisma now because he was for eight years the leader of the free world - tends to give one a bit more gravitas and confidence don’t you know.
Look at Blair in ‘94 and tell me Cameron doesn’t look and sound better now than he did then.
85. well, I know Jack McConnell and Rhodri Morgan too.
From the Welsh Assembly I could name Leann Wood, Peter Law and David Davies too. Welsh names are too difficult for me!
85. Isn’t there a quite young Tory lady in the welsh assembly who is not that unattractive.
89. yes, I remember her having fans here.
çI’ve just been reading Ian Gilmour’s views on the leadership contest in the LRB. Clearly he is going for Clarke, but his put-downs of the oppostition are typically witty. I’ve copied the best bits onto the blog (I think the article is for subscribers only).
89/90- Do you mean Laura Anne Jones?
http://www.lauraannejonesam.com/gallery.html
Libdem’s Kirsty Williams could have some fans too.
87 - I don’t think so. And Blair was already a media superstar in 1994. He had even already added at least one phrase to the political lexicon.
86 - Andrea, we’re agnostic about relationship statuses (genders and legal arrangements, and in some cases multiplicities) - its one of the things that makes us different to our Tory friends who (in name at least if not always in practice) still preference heterosexual marraige (if that’s not a tautology! - but you know what I mean).
“Look at Blair in ‘94 and tell me Cameron doesn’t look and sound better now than he did then - Comment by marcus wood”
OK, Cameron doesn’t look or sound better than Blair did in 1994.
89&90- Laura Anne-Jones. The EUCUA almost booked Ann Jones (the Labour AM) instead of her for the annual Burns Supper last year.
95 - lol
Any by election results from last night?
Council byelection results from yesterday Vale of White Horse DC Drayton Lib Dem 343 Con 215 Lab 63 Lib Dem hold Wantage TC Segsbury Lib Dem 316 Con 200 Lab 104 Lib Dem hold and from Wednesday Rugby DC Paddox was Lib Dem hold ( result was in yesterday’s deleted posts .
99. Mark Senior. Were there some interesting swings or the Libdem holds were similar to last time’s results?
94. Tabman, your new MP for Bristol West is apparently tired to be asked by colleagues if he’s married or has children.
92 - readers can judge for themselves: http://www.kirstywilliams.org.uk/php/photoindex.php
100 - colleagues within or without the party?
Sorry Mike but “Hero to Zero” and “Zero to Hero” is just part of our political culture at the moment. It means nothing more than that we live in febrile times. If it hadn’t been Cameron it would have been Clark or Fox. Just look at the reactions from Tories on this site. You can smell their desperation! It’s so like “The Life of Brian” those of us who aren’t natural Tories are loving it. He has some of Tony Blairs charm for sure but I think it would do him more good in the Liberal or Labour party where he didn’t seem like such a caricature of Tories past.
101. Tabman (or Tabby in honour of Widdy), are you not convinced that Kristy Williams could have some fans?
102. I think he didn’t specify. Now I try to find the article and I’ll tell you later.
100 - Sorry Andrea , Vale of White Horse website does not have the results from previous elections so I do not know what the swing was . I suspect turnout was low also .
103 - indeed, we have an honourable tradition of Etonians; Gladstone, Grimmond, Thorpe, Rendell.
104 - I prefer Tabbers.
Andrea - Stephen Williams (Lib Dem MP for Bristol West) is openly gay. So there’s no point in stirring because there’s nothing to hide!
105 - can you link it? Impossible to comment without seeing it, but as a general principle I believe if you’re not interfering in people’s private lives they shouldn’t interfere in yours. The problems come when you say things like “Thou shalt marry, thou shalt not comit adultery, thou shalt not take illegal drugs” and then get found to have transgressed. Then you’re fair game.
103 - “Like the Life of Brian”
In that case is the Daily Mail the suicide squad at the end trying to help in the stupidest way possible 
108 - thanks Rob, exactly the point I’m making. It’s not really a big issue - what’s more to the point is how good they are at the job.
However, if, as a party, you preference certain types of lifestyle over others then how you live your own life is a legitimate political issue, for to stray outside the boundaries that you as a party have set is to be hypocritical.
108. That’s why he’s tired of the question!
It is completely unacceptable for Cameron to dodge the question when we are talking about something that is illegal and he is a law maker and virtually dismisses it as something that is normal anyway by saying “we all did bad things.”
Well no, some of us didn’t take drugs and those that do, should be held to account by law.
The Daily Mail is not “digging the dirt,” but “digging the truth.”
And the Daily Mail does not want leaders to be soft on drugs, when it causes so many problems, death and pain.
It is time Cameron was open and honest and no digging would be needed.
Marcus 87. I think you meant Robert not me but I agree completely that Cameron should refuse to answer the question on drugs. Once you give the tabloib press an inch they’ll crucify you. The prurience of the Mail etc is not reflected by the public and I thought Ann Leslie looked much more sleazy asking the question than did Cameron not answering it.
No I don’t think Cameron looks nearly as good as Blair did in ‘94 and neither does his CV.
91 - Did Mr Gilmore have nothing to say about Mr Rifkind?
109. Here’s the link, but I think that there’s nothing to discuss about
http://www.thisisbristol.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144919&contentPK=13215348&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch
It’s normal to ask people you don’t know if they’re married. Heterosexual are 90%+ of population, so it’s easy to assume that a new man yoy know is too.
113 - Is this coming direct from Northcliffe House?
Get a grip man.
Haven’t around 80% of the public admitted to taking/trying cannabis?
Don’t we want the House to be representative?
Printz - people, on the whole, decide whether or not to take drugs. Drugs cannot just cause someone “problems, death or pain” without them making a conscious decision to take that risk. Alcohol and gambling also have the potential to cause “problems, death or pain” but we trust people to make their own decisions and take their own risks.
63. Probably stay the same. Cameron won’t make IDS’s mistake of sacking him and leaving him free to plot. As LBJ said always better to have em inside the tent however much you don’t like them pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.
23-Alec Douglas Home?
100. The swing in White Horse was 7% Lib Dem to Con.
Also
Downswood & Otham, Maidstone. Ind hold. Ind 314 Con 184 Lab 14 Swing 17% Ind to Con
Hexham Leazes, Tynedale. Con gain from Lib Dem. Con 596 Lib Dem 412 Swing 11% Lib Dem to Con
I have not heard the results from Shepway, West Lancs or Neath as yet.
54 - I see Carol Thatcher has inherited her mother’s good looks - zikes!
119. The quote was actually Churchill IIRC…
118 - Cannabis is one thing, most of the population would be able to deny taking Class A drugs.
Hi
I have always liked Carol Thatcher, unlike her horrible twin.
121-Folkestone Central:
Con 409
Lab 237
Libdem 120
113. The Daily Mail’s stance is all because they’ve backed the wrong person in the race. They came out for Clarke which looked pretty stupid given their intense hostility to him in previous contests. Alas Cameron outshone Clarke and the Mail’s position even more ridiculous.
118 - Juian wrote:
Drugs cannot just cause someone “problems, death or pain” without them making a conscious decision to take that risk.
Reply:
Incorrect.
Nobody is an island and society suffers from lathargic druggies that are non-productive, the families of those affected, drug addicts that mug and steal to get their fix and road deaths caused by soft and hard drugs.
There is a direct correlation between drugs and crime and drugs and mental health issues. It isn’t a decision that the innocent people affected make to have their lives ruined by druggies.
55 - Marcus, on This Week last night, Charles Clarke was shown saying he’d smoked Cannabis in his late teens. I accept other cabinet members haven’t answered the question “Have you ever taken drugs?” to my knowledge.
If they haven’t, presumably they are afraid about the response/consider it irrelevant.
Unfortunately for Cameron, it has become a relevant question owing to a combination of a refusal to answer and the people asking really wanting an answer (bit of blood smelling).
The general public are able to cope with the idea that some people take drugs at University. Even Cocaine and other harder drugs. Now if he was a drug dealing, drug crazed druggie they’d be bothered - but we’d know about it already.
Cameron could have cleared this up but has shown a weakness.
Robert.
128. Hostile to Clarke in previous contests? Err they backed him in 2001 as well didn’t they?
124. Agreed most would be able to but would all of them be willing to…Once you talk about one thing the media expect you to keep it up, politicians are public servants not public property…
119. That was my thought but I wonder how Hague would be accomodated. Education maybe? Would leave him free to carry out his other activities.
128 - Or they think the Murdoch press are backing Cameron.
127 then that is a whopping 18% swing from Lib Dem to Con. A second Con gain seat from Lib Dems on this council within a month. And they go from 1st to 3rd place.
Not a good day for the Liberals all in all.
re Printz 129. Can I make it clear that nobody on Politicalbetting is suggesting that any of the leadership contenders are lathargic druggies nor are we suggesting that any of them mug and steal to get their fix
Can any Liberals settle for me why you had such a heavy swing against you in North Cornwall in May? Cornwall is like the Lib Dem Home Counties, so what happened there?
137 re North Cornwall - easy: popular & long-standing MP Paul Tyler stood down and relatively less well-known Dan Rogerson succeeded him.
Tyler was MP since (?) ‘92 & indeed had briefly been MP in another part of Cornwall between the 2 ‘74 elections, so v well known.
Expect a significant swing to the LDs at the next election once Dan is established & benefits from first term incumbency.
Beverley, Kingston-upon Hull, Lib Dem hold. Lib Dem 1375 Lab 382 Con 187 Swing 7% Lab to Lib Dem
Upholland, west Lancs, Labour hold. Lab 604 Con 408 Swing 1% Con to Lab
This is the kind of nonsense you get from Daily Mail readers/writers.
Drugs causes crime is a fact. Having snorted coke or smoked dope (not suggesting any member of parliament has done either (?!) ) does not mean you rob old ladies.
If we want censorship can we ban the Mail?
129:
1. Society suffers from “lathargic” [sic] druggies: May I ask what you think about people with inherited wealth who contribute nothing to society with their ample spare time? Or people who retire early after making a mint in the City. Should we take measures against everyone’s lethargy for the benefit of “society”?
2. Families - yes, families can be hurt by, for example, a member of the family’s drug habit. But why should a government interfere in a family’s business - do you expect central government to protect families from their own potential problems (which arise from a choice one of them has consciously made)? Again I cite alcohol, drugs, and even working too hard and having affairs as things which affect families. Do you feel a government should decide what is best for families and legislate so as to model their lives?
3. Crime - yes, certain addiction leads inevitably to crime. But the criminalisation of drugs has done nothing to prevent this, and has in effect caused it. Furthermore, I’m a great believer in punishing a crime itself rather than a variable that may be linked to that crime. Many people across the world pay for drugs they wish to consume (including alcohol) and are able to control themselves whilst taking those drugs without affecting others.
In Sheppey the Lib Dem councillor had defected to the Greens so officially was a gain from them.
136 - Of course not Mike, but what I am talking about is the consequence of a drug culture.
And in a recent case, a judge attributed a violent murder to the influence of cannibis.
How can a politician have any authority to be seen to ensure laws are enforced on drugs if that politician won’t admit or deny that he took drugs himself?
‘Ears’ are good
I think it’s hilarious that the Tories think so much of Cameron - he has no track record. Blair has proven to be an effective leader and he has earned that accolade. In 1994, that was not a racing certainty. Saying that Cameron in 2005 will end up with a Blair-like record by the middle of the next decade is ridiculous.
Right now, his ONLY virtue is that he is not ugly.
Keep your heads in gear people!!
What a visual world we live in. It’s only sad people don’t use their ears any more.
I think much of the pontificating about whether it’s alright (or not alright) for politicians to have transgressed is missing the point about what our politicians are there to do. Unlike, say, the clergy or the judiciary they aren’t there to pass judgement on the people, they are there to represent us.
Our press are obsessed with any sniff of ‘hypocracy’ from politicians. But politicians -if they are doing their jobs properly- quite properly make laws based on what they believe the public want. Their own preferences and predjudices (and past behaviour) should be secondary to what they believe the public want and what is right for the majority of citizens.
It’s a little different when their own personal behaviour is corrupt or where they abuse their office and so on, obviously.
Re: 135 - Well, I’m not sobbing, Andy, you can be sure of that. Shepway is a funny area where power has shifted between all three parties in the past decade. The Tories are in the ascendant at the moment but the turnout was pitiful. Good hold on VoWH DC and of course Rugby on Wednesday. Hexham is more serious - a number of results in that area in the last year or two have suggested a Tory comeback in that mainly rural area. Labour almost captured Hexham in 1997 but that was at the height of their advance. Tynedale is a strongly Tory area.
I see Port Talbot Council has 3 Social Democratic Councillors. More interesting set of contests next week including two contests in London.
115 - Sorry - I didn´t put that bit on the blog. He said Rifkind would be better than Cameron, Fox, & Davis as Prime Minister, I think. I didn´t put it on as Rifkind is already out.
139. Is that Beverley result right?
Re: 148 - Yes, that’s what has appeared on the council’s website.
145 - “I think much of the pontificating about whether it’s alright (or not alright) for politicians to have transgressed is missing the point about what our politicians are there to do. Unlike, say, the clergy or the judiciary they aren’t there to pass judgement on the people, they are there to represent us”
Marcus, I’m sorry but your attempt at sophistry doesn’t stack up. Your party in particular has made a habit of “pass[ing] judgement on the people”; the likes of Mr Leigh and his chums believe that the Tories are there to uphold “family values”, ie heterosexual marriage, etc etc. That is very clearly passing a value judgement on certain lifestyles. Support for Section 28 is another.
When politicians preference certain lifestyles over others, should they themselves not uphold those standards then the public has a right to know and juge accordingly.
Were the Tory party to turn round and say “taking drugs is a matter for the individual and we support licenced supply and proper treatment programmes” then taking drugs as a politician would not be an issue.
“And in a recent case, a judge attributed a violent murder to the influence of cannabis. ”
In the paper yesterday there was a story about a young man who was beaten to death by two men under the influence of alcohol.
stodge 146. Then it is an even more amazing achievement that on a pitiful turnout the absolute number of votes cast for the Conservatives was more than the absolute number last time.
By “more interesting” I guess you mean “more hopeful”
I am sure you will be celebrating a win next week in Streatham South - More power to the Lambeth coalition. And I don’t think you’re under any threat in Canbury.
151. And furthermore Sophia uses a correct term “under the influence” of alcohol rather than Printz’s “attributed to cannabis”, which gives the ridiculous implication that it is the drug itself that has committed the act, rather than the person in question.
141 - Julian, it all depends on how you see the role of the government to protect the public and how much freedom you want to give people to blow their brains to bits with drugs and endanger others, but as the law stands, drugs are illegal.
I had friends who became bone idle and apathetic as a result of cannibis. If you are happy to pay taxes to keep them in their self-imposed self-indulgent brain-numbed state, good for you, but I don’t and nor do most people.
It isn’t a question of government deciding what is best for families, but simply for the law to be enforced. The fact is that the law has not been enforced and drug use has esculated. The job of the police is to enforce the law. The job of politicians is to ensure the police are doing their job effectually.
A political leader who is seen to have been part of the drugs culture and won’t even appear to be honest about it, is not going to be credible in ensuring the law is enforced and the people are protected from drug abuse.
123 I think it was probably LBJ but all these things go around in other forms often changed (steal and idea a day makes a good poitician?)sometimes bowdlerised. LBJ actually said, for instance, that Jerry Ford is so dumb he can’t fart and chew gum at the same time but often is changed to can’t walk and chew as it is so much more refeened.
143 - “And in a recent case, a judge attributed a violent murder to the influence of cannibis.”
I don´t use it myself. Still I wonder how many murders have been prevented by the use of cannabis. England football fans in Holland have been much quieter than elsewhere, for example.
I WOULD like to see him answer a straight question. I don’t believe this drip drip drip rumour/side-step thing is going to do the Tory party any good.