The Leadership battle - the first six months
October 15th, 2005
- Will the Sundays kill off the Cameron challenge?
As our chart shows the first six months of the battle to replace Michael Howard as Tory leader has seen huge swings between the front-runners. What the graph illustrates is the implied probability of success based on the best betting prices available. Even though this is the final weekend of the first phase this contest is still very difficult to call and much could depend on what is in tomorrow’s papers.
What a test for the media skills of all of the contenders tomorrow will be. So far as the punters who are risking hard cash on the outcome are concerned the drugs affair does not seem to have hurt Cameron. He remains a heavy odds-on favourite.
MY PERSONAL BETTING: I’m not totally convinced by the markets and have been cutting back my exposure on Cameron ahead of tomorrow. I’ve also put a little bit on Fox at 9/1 and 10/1 because his price will surely tighten if after Tuesday’s vote he is still in the race.
Leadership Betting
Best betting exchange prices; Cameron 0.78/1: Davis 2.34/1: Clarke 20/1: Fox 9/1
Best bookmaker prices; Cameron 4/6: Davis 9/4: Clarke 9/1: Fox 8/1
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
All four of the broadsheets: Telegraph, Times, Guardian and Indy have run leaders sympathetic to Cameron’s position. Charles Moore writing in the Daily Telegraph and Matthew Parris writing in The Times are equally so. I don’t think Cameron could have asked for better press ahead of what the rags on Sunday might come out with. I look forward to watching Davis on telly tonight. If it lives up to it’s billing, I think it may well prove a tactical mistake for Davis and turn people off him. At the very least it’s reassuring to see the responsible media in this country taking a reasonable line on this nonsense.
Mike: Does your reducing your exposure to Cameron in your personal betting mean you no longer believe he is likely to win, or are you just hedging your bets as it were?
AH 1. I think Cameron will survive the next few days but there is just a risk. Given his very tight price at the moment I’ve been able to lay off a small amount very cheaply and go into next week knowing that I’ll make a profit whoever is the winner. If it’s Cameron I make thousands - if it is anybody else I make hundreds.
I also look for opportunities where I think prices might change - thus my bets on Fox which I will lay if he gets through Tuesday and his price moves as I think it will. Thus if I back him at 10 and then lay him at 5 there’s a profit opportunity.
My big bet in this contest has been laying David Davis at an average price of 0.65/1. He’s now at 2.35/1 so I can cover the risk relatively cheaply.
Mike, sound move laying Davis with opporunity to cover position. Like you, I will be better off if Cameron wins. (took 12-1) But the swings in the market have enabled you to cover your position so you cannot lose.
If only all betting were so easy.
2 - Makes sense. I don’t gamble on things I have an emotional connection to though, and even then not often. But I do very much hope you win your thousands and not your hundreds.
What do you personally think the result of Davis’s interview is likely to be given the way it’s been reported?
Having listened to the Davis v Morgan exchange in question. Davis seemed hesistant to answer the question, but left himself room to manoeuvre by talking about recent drug use.
It won’t help Cameron, but, on the other hand, it doesn’t really help Davis, as the Telegraph editorial makes clear. Telegraph is surprisingly supportive of Cameron’s plight — maybe this line is echoed by other Tories who’ve dabbled at university.
Quite why Cameron didn’t give a simple yes last Sunday when the media’s attention was focussed on Pakistan remains a bit of a mystery.
5 - Cheltboy: Surely the answer is clear: Once you open yourself up to that line of questioning, how on earth do you stop it? You and others may not agree, but Cameron has clearly decided that opening that pandora’s box is clearly not the right answer and the Telegraph and the other broadsheets agree with him according to their leaders published today.
Can you point me to where you managed to see the Davis interview? I think Davis’s willingness to get directly involved in the matter may be taken by some as an indication that his team (either alone or as a joint venture with Team Fox) were the ones peddling these allegations to the papers in the first place, otherwise why not follow the old maxim ‘When your rival self destructs the best thing you can do is get out of his way’? They clearly have a vested interest in keeping the story going and hoping that it nobbles Cameron. Whatever will be, will be. But if DC were to be knocked out because of this there would be a lot of ill will within the party over it.
Newsnight showed the clip in question.
I agree about opening the floodgates. But the focus on the quake offered an opportunity to knock the story on the head without attracting too much publicity.
I accept the sentiment. Why isn’t the Mail asking Davis, Fox, Clark and Cameron whether they have ever broken the speed limit or driven through a red light, which also means breaking the law.
Deliberately driven through a red light, or by accident?
You do not drive through a red light by accident.
Well I have, whereas I have never done it deliberately, so I can refute that theory.
AH @ 1. What I am concerned about is the growing ‘mediocracy’ in this country. It should not be up to newspapers to decide whether it is ok for Cameron or not. It shouldn’t have been up to them to tell the world that this rather dull man is a whizz kid - a line which gets constantly repeated on here and yet with my own eyes I have yet to witness. More to the point - this site, which used to be an interesting place to come and hear a combination of activist and betting information has now become part of that mediocracy.
Now lets be realistic, what has Cameron actually said about anything yet? Of importance I mean - um - well the Tory Party have to be nicer and stop arguing - you don’t have to be the organ grinder to work that out. Let’s face it the most well known thing that David Cameron has ever said is ‘well er I’m not going to say whether I have had drugs or not’ - hardly one of the great rallying calls of the last 150 years.
So my point is - is really I don’t understand why everyone on here is so sucked in by the media bubble. I personally don’t care if the Tories elect Cameron myself. I think they are far more up the creek electorally, due to their lack of appeal in Northern cities than any old Etonian can change (in fact is less likely to be able to - an aspect that Davis should have made more out of, but there you go). I am just sick of lines being parroted around the country “ooh wasn’t he good on Newsnight” - no I think he was outperformed by at least two other panel members “ooh we shouldn’t bother whether he has tried drugs” why not - Kate Moss was crucified and hung out to dry by the very same people. So wake up people - and stop letting a bunch of editors run your thoughts for you.
Alex 10 - if you drive through a red light by accident then you would get done for driving without due care and attention.
I think your obcessive hostility to “anything Cameron” is going to end in disappointment. I was with some local party members last night and the mood is even more in his favour. People are now praising how well he is handling the crisis and saying that it has been a good way of testing his mettle ahead of the votes.
I write from near David Davis’s birth-place and not from from his consituency where he is held in great respect. But he is not seen as the leader that the party needs.
12 - ? quite right I was probably day-dreaming. I’m not sure what it has to do with Cameron? It’s a bit pointless asking a question about speeding or driving through a red light because it would have absolutely no potency whatever the answer. (unless they answered “no” to the speeding question in which case they would be lying ;-))
I maybe wrong but I don’t think I’ve made an “anti-Cameron” comment for at least a couple of days
You may have chosen to interpret an analysis of the contest as such, but that’s your prerogative.
Alex. I think that he got confused and was talking about me. But then again I am not obsessively ‘anti-Cameron’ - I couldn’t give a monkey’s whether he wins or lose - realistically I think the Tories have got a lot more work to do than just pick a leader - like work out their relevance to anyone or anything, and overcome their marginalisation in the majority of urban areas in Britain. My railing against Cameron is just sheerly pointing out the ‘emperor’s new clothes’ situation of it. The media love him - so what? Is he any good - and my view as an ordinary punter is ‘not really’.
14 - I think he was talking about me. And I agree with you.
I think he will win the Tory leadership, but I think the rest of the Country have a right to be concerned about how he would fare as Prime Minister. In his case it’s not really a “purity before power argument”. There are many decisions which a Prime Minister has to make which will have nothing to do with ideology, and which can be far more assured with experience - so while I disagree with Clarke on many issues, I would have confidence in his ability to conduct the day by day running of Government. We just don’t know with Cameron.
Alex. Sorry - my ego getting in the way. Countryman disagreed with me yesterday on the same matter - and I haven’t looked since - so I just assumed….(especially as within the context of the thread - it was only me that could be interpreted as particularly having a go at Cameron)
1 - Ah OK. Maybe it was you
11 - Of course you don’t, Paul. You want him strung up because in your eyes he has committed the mortal sin of being a Conservative. Forgive me, but I suspect if the man were a Liberal Democrat, you would be thinking this is all a bunch of collywobbles.
10 - You absolute CRIMINAL!! Where?? How often did you do it?? When did you stop??
Paul is a Labour supporter, isn’t he?
19 - I reckon probably once or twice. Next question.
20 - He most certainly is not!! You haven’t been reading his past posts!!
21 - Tut, Tut. You should have told me to mind my own bloody business.
22 - Given up the hunt already? Story died out?
23 -”MAN IN RECKLESS DRIVING SCANDAL, FITNESS FOR OFFICE QUESTIONED” Oh no, young man - you’ve given me all I need!
24 - I don’t think it’ll stick
I’m not sure going through a red light would be enough to sustain a charge of reckless driving btw
Anyhow. I am now being forced, against my will and better judgement, to take my wife to Sainsburys and push the trolley. I shall be back to play later.
:no emoticon for sulking, is there?: 
24. Sounds like a local paper main news headline.
25. At least a full week coverage in the Richmond Guardian
28 - Nobody reads the Richmond Guardian, Andrea
26 - I don’t care whether you can prove it or sustain it, it’ll sell my newspapers for a day or two!! Since when did the gutter press ever care about accuracy and probity?
With that, I shall be back later.
I think Paul Lloyd makes a reasonable point: regardless of the merits or otherwise of the drugs issue, they are getting in the way of any discussion of policy whatever. I know quite well what a Clarke-led Opposition would stand for. I have only a vague idea about a Davis or Fox one. And I haven’t a clue about a Cameron one, except for Icarus’s post the other day. Does anyone? For instance, I can’t remember a single proposal he’s made as Education spokesman - you could argue that this is be my fault for not paying enough attention to him, but I’d be surprised if most Tory MPs, let alone members, know much more.
If the only thing that matters is looking attractive to voters, then it’s reasonable that the debate is focused on how voters will feel about a candidate’s drug activities which may or may not have occurred at some point. But I’d have expected the Tories to be mildly interested in policy too.
30 - don’t need to sell the Richmond Guardian. It’s free.
32. Free and no body reads it?
31 - You don’t agree with what your colleage, Ben Bradshaw, said on Question Time about this being a media driven witch hunt and that Cameron has every right not to get into the muck with them? I expected better of you than that, Nick.
Some of us still wonder what Blair really stands for, you know - and he’s been Prime Minister for 8 years!
I have got to be careful because having tipped Cameron on August 1st here and having predicted what would happen at the Tory conference I feel a sort of proprietorial interest in him. I want him to win if only to prove that I was right 11 weekends ago - you know the sort of thing.
Having said that I think he is very dangerous to the Lib Dems. It is not about policy but about style and my strong sense is that he will go down well with the millions who switched from the Tories to my party over the past 15 years. The studies show that about 37-40% of Lib Dem support inclines to the Tories and Cameron could give them a reason to go back.
Also the Lib Dems in whatever incarnation they have been in have always done badly when the Tories have been recovering - and if Cameron was able to get the party off the 33% base level then we could be in trouble.
34 - “Some of us still wonder what Blair really stands for, you know - and he’s been Prime Minister for 8 years!”
And what do you think of his performance in office?
Mike, I have grown wary of predicting Lib Dems in trouble after the drubbing of my predictions on May 5th, but the basic sentiment you post is correct, the Lib dems are still the most vulnerable to a Tory revival (provided that is a ‘one nation’ style revival and not a neoCon one) but the key question is, will the recognise that and move left - or are the Orange Book lot still in the ascendancy?
Much as I would like to announce another exclusive on Mike’s mighty organ, modesty forbids me from revealing the candidate of this unstopable electoral force …. Ahhh em
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=2092032005
38. Jack, could you translate “Winning Here” in Gaelic?
39 Andrea. Slaithe
pronounced Slange !!!!!
Mike @ 35,
Don’t get too paranoid about the prospect of Cameron. Yes, he’s certainly a problem for us interms of former Tories drifting back but no more than Blair was in 1994, and we survived that far better than many predicted.
Also, I’m not sure the historical trends will hold true at every election from 1924 onwards when a Labour govt’s vote fell, the Lib vote fell as well - with Tories as the beneficaries. Perhaps the most striking aspect of this years election is that that golden rule was broken and the 8 out of 10 of the voters that left Labour came over to the LibDems.
What those two things tell me, is that the LibDems have reached a kind of critical mass, both in terms and as a separate political destination to weather the storm of a new moderate Tory leader.
Marcus @ 37
I would say that the Orange Bookers are in the ascendency but the argument is still being waged. That is the intellectual discusson has been won but the emotional argument is still going on.
Some weeks agao someone on here drew up a list of LD MPs, with somethingb like 16 Orange Bookers, 20 or so leftwingers, and about 30 undogmatic centrists (including Kennedy. Since then its become clear that a number of the new MPs, such as Jenny Willott & Greg Mulholland while still being classified as centrists are in fact quite sympatheic to moving away from the party’s recent nanny state/big government approach.
40. Thanks Jack.
With all the cricket fans here, I’m disappointed that no one told me that English female cricket team won the Ashes.
I had to read it on an Early Day Motion (reading them keeps someone better informed than a newspaper).
Should I expect an EDM like this one?
That this House condemns Mr David Cameron for not answering the question
1. Mr Matlock It is a further mistake in two further ways too perhaps. Firstly it may generate sympathy for Cameron and further confirm Davis’s reputation among his colleagues and sweep him away. Secondly even if they somehow succeed in blocking Cameron the sense of bitterness in his camp maybe such that many of his supporters who would have considered backing Fox or Davis because of their doubts on Ken and Europe may well swallow those doubts and swing behind Ken so enraged are they by the antics of the Fox and Davis Camps.
I want to see this DD interview in full before I make a final comment but from what I’ve read so far, it seems DD has simply denied taking drugs (something I don’t blame him for as I would also deny it) and if someone had taken drugs recently (presumably whilst in Parliament) then they should not be leader of a party. I’ve not seen the interview but if these questions were asked in a direct way, I don’t see what’s wrong with the answers. DD seems to have a big problem with perception in the media. It must be a big concern for him.
Re: 35 The demise of the Lib Dems has been predicted before too often for us to be unduly concerned, Mike. After merger we were not even predicted to survive (Thatcher described the new party as a ‘Dead Parrot’ a month before the 1990 Eastbourne by-election and her departure from Downing St in 1990).
The Tories bright new leader John Major was then predicted to be bad news for the Lib Dems, as was Labour’s move to the centre under John Smith.
The Lib Dem doom mongers then had a field day when Tony Blair and New Labour arrived, and again in the run-up to the 2001 election, when 1997 was written off as a ‘flash in the pan’ for the Lib Dems.
Cameron will present a challenge to the Lib Dems but also a potntial opportunity. Labour sucessfully played the bogeyman card in the final week of this year’s general election, warning people off voting Lib dem for fear of letting in the evil Michael Howard. The Tories did the same thing in 1992, when the prospect of a Kinnock government with Lib Dem support looked likely. If Cameron presents a more acceptable face to the voter, that bogeyman card won’t work. The Lib Dems could benefit in seats where they are challengers to Labour, and in some of the 3 way marginal prospects.
Cameron’s problem is whther he can change the image of his party, however photogenic and presentable he may be.
Sorry Alastair. My point was more akin to the way Nick interpretted it. I think that the drugs thing is stupid - The current forecast is that 75% of the population will have smoked cannabis at least once by 2020. I can’t imagine that the House of Commons will be drawn exclusively from the 25% who haven’t - it would be statistically unimaginable.
My underlying point is that Cameron - as perhaps he alwys was going to do considering his background - has thrown himself to the vagueries of the media. Last week he was the darling - this week ‘was he a drug taker?’. The week after??? Meanwhile, not very many people have sought to find out what vision he has for this country or how he is going to help shape Tory policy. I also think that it shows that the Tories are still conning themselves - ‘we’ll have our own media friendly public schoolboy’ and everyone will fall back into line. I don’t buy this oh the LDs will just fall back. Their position is far more powerful than at any previous time in terms of position. They have a far better position to challenge Labour in many of the big cities across the country than the Tories, and despite the seeming ‘falling out’ at their conference I have much reliable information from friends on both ‘wings’ of the Lib Dems that the overwhelming feeling was for an appetite for more.
Personally I think the Tories should elect Cameron. I think it would be alot better for the Lib Dems than Clarke. But I think that the Tories are so desperate for a star that a shooting one will do - unfortunately they have a tendency to crash and burn.
I wonder whether there is enough time for us to discover whether he is the emperor with no clothes as Paul suggests or something else. Tories don’t seem to care either way. Yesterday we had Bluetowin waxing lyrical about the number and appropriateness of his smiles on Qustion Time which seems to reflect the ‘Big Brother household’ appeal of this contest.
I hope he wins so we can find out what his policies are. The only information I have has come from several interviews during the election where he explained why the Tories were right to bang on about immigration and Gypsies. Not very appealing but I’m not a Tory.
Bullseye. I know that as an ‘orange booker’ you might think you have won the intellectual argument - I think there is evidence elsewhere that that is not the case.
Woody 44. I think you are right about the interview - the trouble is that there is so much bad will in part of the media towards the Davis camp because of the way they’ve been operating until only recently. They were treating “hostile” journalsits in the same way they would treat an errant MP ahead of a crucial vote.
Thus virtually anything he says is open to a wrong interpretation.
I think his comment about “not bad-mouthing fellow Conservatives” was a mistake because it gives journalists a peg on which to hang stories and is clearly not the case. All four campaigns are bad-mouthing everybody - some are more subtle.
Can anyone imagine this issue being of similar importance in a Labour or Lib Dem leadership election? Or if Michael Howard had got his way on the rules? It is surely all about the age profile of the Tory party membership. And a system that almost ensures that whoever emerges as leader has just had a majority of his Party’s MPs vote against him.
49. Interesting as well that there was virtually no reporting of DDs speech in Bradford about reaching out to inner cities. At the risk of sounding paranoid, it looks like the majority of the media have decided who they want to win and not many of them are going for DD.
51. The media are certainly not rooting for Davis, but he should ask himself if ha has some faults in producing this lack of love from the media.
You could always console yourself with Edwina’s latest troubles:
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newshamhigh&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshamhigh&itemid=WeED13%20Oct%202005%2019%3A58%3A57%3A840
52. I’ve a bit of sympathy with Edwina there. I have reservations about faith schools myself but we won’t get into that right now.
BTW, have you got a link to the website that shows MEPs members of staff that you mentioned yesterday?
Well aware of DC history at the Home Office with MH, suspect that will serve him well with Conservative members but I did not know and was suprised to read last week that he was apparently in the overall Treasury team at the time of Black Monday and close to NL. If true that may prove to be the hardest skeleton to escape from.
From my recollections of him in 1997 at meetings he was right of centre on the economy and cime and leftish on social issues (right and left in Conservative terms), reasonable and I thought rational on abortion, concerned that if abolished the back street would reoccur with all the terrible problems that produces.
Having said all that I am betting on Dr Fox to suprise us all, if he makes the last two I think he will win. Suspect deep down his statements echo what many many conservatives members think.
Everyone shoot me down!!!!!!
Local election this week two good Conservative gains but they did not do as well as I thought, the result in Beverley for the Lib Dems probably had a lot of tactical voting in it because of how tight Labour and Lib Dems are in Hull. Now then how would DC do in Hull and its likes, that might be a a key issue? Perversely think Dr Fox might do better in the inner cities than DC, people will know where he was coming from, loud and clear!!!!.
One last thought and then I am off with the better half to look for furniture, is the media and others looking too much at presentation on TV and not at policy. On think we do not want is another Blair type person, the media might love it, but the public are looking for a break from all that, rather like JM after MT.
53.woody662, here’s the list of all MEPs and their assistants accredited to the European Parliament:
http://www.europarl.eu.int/members/expert/assistantAlphaOrderByMep.do?language=EN
Re post 54, lat para, line three. Should be “One thing”
At last some of our posters are noticing that policy isn’t just of little importance, its of no importance to most people (except Europe to tories). Mood music is everything. If you’re at a dance, and you start analysing the lyrics, you won’t pull. The atmosphere is the thing. You either put out good vibes, or you go home on your own..
TB has no policies? Harsh–he’s made it clear that he believes in whatever will work. How much clearer does he need to be?
So our polite and educated soc*alist MP for Broxtowe doesn’t know DC’s policies on anything. DC has that exactly right. Does Nick Palmer need to know?
Sorry David Kendrick, but that is abosulute rubbish. New Labour, whether you agree with it or not had a huge agenda with regards to economic, social and government administration. The reason that they gained power was not mood music, because they had a coherent (again whether you like it or not is immaterial) programme for government. Tony Blair was the icing on the cake - the salesman who clinched the deal. I don’t always like to push the business analogy too far, but marketing can only truely be successful if there is a product to sell.
Sorry David Kendrick, but that is abosulute rubbish. New Labour, whether you agree with it or not had a huge agenda with regards to economic, social and government administration. The reason that they gained power was not mood music, because they had a coherent (again whether you like it or not is immaterial) programme for government. Tony Blair was the icing on the cake - the salesman who clinched the deal. I don’t always like to push the business analogy too far, but marketing can only truely be successful if there is a product to sell.
46 - “the Tories are so desperate for a star that a shooting one will do”
Surely this allegation has to be deleted
“So our polite and educated soc*alist MP for Broxtowe doesn’t know DC’s policies on anything. DC has that exactly right. Does Nick Palmer need to know?”
Of course we don’t need to know what DC’s policies are anymore than we need to know whether David Beckham can play football. As long as he’s handsome and dresses well he’s the perfect captain of England!
The posts on this site are getting more bizarre by the minute!
61,.”Of course we don’t need to know what DC’s policies are anymore than we need to know whether David Beckham can play football. As long as he’s handsome and dresses well he’s the perfect captain of England! ”
but is Samantha Cameron the Posh Spice of British politics?
60.
I stand by the quote - it would be hard to make any other interpretation stick in a court of law!
Well, David (s), I would consider myself towards the right of the party and I don’t really see much difference in the positions of DC, DD and LF. LF hasn’t said anything that makes me think he’s some rabid right-winger. So it comes down to media presentation and Cameron is clearly best. Obviously Cameron has kept his cards close to his chest, but I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Many have called the Conservative Party the ‘Economics Party’ and I have to say that for me it’s the economics that matter, whether the leader wants to decriminalise hard drugs or whether he wants to apoint Widdy as chief flagellatrix (if that’s the right word!) is a side issue. All I care is that KC gets humiliated. His views on the EU cause me never to vote for him, but when, in a time of war, he gives a speech suggesting we surrender. Grrrr!… let’s just say if I had a bus, he’d be under it.
63. People make their own jokes on here.
I didn’t even know her name was Samantha…..but I do know she has a dolphin tattoo on her ankle. I imagine Posh has a whale tattoo on her bum so no, they’re not really comparable
64. Bit harsh there on KC Colin. Although I wouldn’t want him to be leader, I wouldn’t actively seek to run him over.
34,
Blair, stands for a lot you believe in, if you would only admit it and get of the partisan angle.
He refused to diviluge his childs medical history, regarding, the whipped up frenzy over Mmr by the Daily Mail.
Which was in my opinion correct, his child is not a politician.
Cameron is also correct in not answering every question regarding his families medical history,
“Although I wouldn’t want him to be leader, I wouldn’t actively seek to run him over”
Your an old softy Woody.
66.”but I do know she has a dolphin tattoo on her ankle. ”
Funny that he enjoys giving details of his private life on some issues and then advocating teh right of a private life on other issues
My favorite First Lady in waiting is Ken’s wife! She rules above all (DD’s wife needs a new hairsyle)
Fox’s fiance is the one who looks more like a PM’s wife.
70. She certainly works hard. Did you see the clip of her carrying KCs heavy suitcase into his car whilst he just stood there posing for photos. Very gentlemanly.
71 - perhaps the party should look southwestwards for its leader, and pick the MP who sat himself down at the count in May whilst his pregnant wife had to stand.
“Fox’s fiance is the one who looks more like a PM’s wife”.
Cherie Blair always strikes me as bright and outgoing. Norma Major reminds me of a timid wife in a Len Loach film. So I’m not sure what a PM’s wife should look like?
71. I missed that clip, but I’m not totally surprised by Ken letting her carrying suitcases.
Have you seen the assistants list? Did you spot something suspicious?
Paul Lloyd [59] thinks Nulab have a ‘huge agenda’ on…
Perhaps he can help us all on one of wide interest.
Pensions. ‘Huge agenda’, for sure. Policies? Search me, but PL may fill in the details for the rest of us.
75 - New Labour have a huge agenda on Pensions - it’s called Compulsion. The reason they don’t have any stated policies at the moment is because they can’t find a mechanism to sell it to the public.
73. Roger, well, actually I don’t know how a PM’s wife should look like, but it’s like when you see a politician (no matter how good he/she is) and you say “he looks like a PM” or “I don’t see him as PM”.
Then I suppose the perfect PM’s wife characteristics are subjective. My perfect PM’s wife is a confident woman, confortable with the media, but she doesn’t want to have too much spotlight. She should know how to behave in public (not embarassing her husband).
74. I was wonderig if Kilroy had any assistants seeing as he does no work himself.
71. ? and which party?
Sorry should have been 72
10 Alex A hypothetical interview.
Mr Alex, when you missed the red light at 2pm that day had you been drinking? You had. How much? One or two wines only at lunch. So you were under the limit? You are sure? You are, good?
So why did you miss the light? You were tired? On a Saturday lunch time at 2pm? Tired from a party the night before? So you still had a hangover? No? So you didn’t drink anything? Oh, only a wine or two at the party. So you were there till 4am from, what, 10pm, yes, and you only drank a wine or two? Do you remember exactly? You don’t? Why not, did you drink so much you have forgotten? Are you aware that it takes 12 hours for alcohol to leave the system?
Is it safe for passengers to travel in your car when you are often in such a state? Well if it is not often, how often do you go to parties like that? Once a week, once a month, more often? So, you are at parties quite often till the early hours of the morning?
Do people use drugs at these parties? They do? Fashionable people are they? They are? Do they offer you their cocaine? Its not cocaine? So you know what they use, you are familiar with hard drugs? When you are so close to drugs and their users its difficult not to become a user isn’t it? You agree? You do.
The other people there these drug users are your friends? Are you sure you don’t use drugs? Never? You tried it once? Only once? Only marijuana? When coke was available? And you go to these drug parties quite often you say? What do you mean they are not drugs parties, you have just told me they are. Are you sure you had not been smoking dope as you were driving your car, after all you admit you smoke marijuana? Can you prove you were not? From what you have told me you must often are tired from going to drug parties till the early hours of the morning and become distracted while driving over the limit………………..When, Mr Alex ,will you resign your position of trust as a dope fiend drunken driver? You say that is untrue but I have a tape of what you have told me.
78. I suppose his assaistant( Jan Kilroy-Silk) is a relative.
81 - well i don’t drink and drive, and have never taken drugs, so i guess that whole post was a bit unnecessary Blue2win
Off (or maybe on topic) i just saw this on the Yougov site. Interesting reading for those who don’t rate GB.
“Finally, what do people think about Tony Blair’s likely successor? MORI asked people if they thought Gordon Brown or Tony Blair would make a better Prime Minister. People were actually quite evenly split - 39% said Blair, 42% said Brown. There was, however, a sharp contrast between supporters of different parties. Unsurprisingly Tony Blair appealled more to Tory voters than Gordon Brown by 45% to 37%. Amongst Lib Dem voters Brown is easily preferred to Blair, 53% to 27%. And amongst Labour’s own voters? Well, despite Brown’s popularity most Labour voters still seem to think that Blair would be better at the top job, by a margin of 56% to 37%”.
84 - interesting in what way?
The misery piles up for the Lib Dems?
I mean in the sense that those who don’t rate him are right, or are wrong?
Wrong. Those that matter ie Non Tory voters seem to either like him or not dislike him
78. woody, there was a website with all attendance statistics regarding MEPs. Sadly now it’s offline.
I don’t remember how many times Kilroy actually went to EU Parliament.
84. I’m not surprised that Blair scores well between Labour voters. Supporters of a party tend to be more “protective” toward their leader.
I remember Italain MEPs were the ones with the lowest attendance
(Tory voters are a rump and would vote Tory whatever so can be ignored regarding Brown)
89. ops, the last line should be after the comment about Kilroy and before the “sad” face.
Damn, I should reread my posts!
That poll shows that from a Liberal perspective he is bad news. From a Tory perspective he is probably good news.
92. if Lab to Libdem voters will come back to Lab in lab/tory marginals, it’s not so good for the tories.
BTW, I am suprised that everyone has missed a potentially very damaging story to Cameron totally seperate from the drugs malarky. In the Times they have uncovered a memo he wrote while working for Lamont advocating Britain returning to the ERM and joining the single currency. While time has passed and his views have changed this could damage him in the eyes of some of the MP’s he needs to win over and could prove a major problem in the members ballot, should he get there.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1826956,00.html
93 - Roger seems to have ignored the possibility of a whole host of current Labour voters returning to the Tories.
95. I find normal that labour voters claim to be loyal to their current leader.
I’m absolutely amazed at how supine Tory members are being over DC and the drugs issue.
Just because THEY believe him to be their new messiah, blindly absolving him of all sins, others will need a little more convincing.
This is not about whether you or I believe it to be a problem. For the majority of the country IT IS A PROBLEM. Why? Because the majority of the electorate are over 35 and don’t even know what cocaine is, which makes it much scarier than it is. (I personally think cannabis is far worse)
The truth is the electorate is not ready for it, and the special pleading by Tories on this blog has been quite astonishing. The allegation is about COCAINE, not cannabis (for those who think one is worse than the other)
And for what its worth, I saw DC out walking this morning and he looks bloody anxious.
83 Alex hypothetical only. I am sure you are personally as pure as the driven snow. But this is the type of stuff journalists do and once you admit that you did something they can whip up into a story by pulling the threads, then they soon have the jumper unravelling from the neck down.
That is why the more PR wise politicians ( Blair, Cameron et al) refuse to get into these crazed chases for answers to ‘essential’ (aka irrelevant) questions. And that is another reason why I am now very anti DD. His answering the question shows either a lack of nous or a nasty streak of desperation, and expanding on his answer confirms the knife in the hand. His smirk is telling both in the Platell interview and in parliament during Home Office questions. He should have stuck to his own commitment to not knife his rivals.
96 - you’re confusing Labour party activists and members with Labour voters. There is no reason for a floating voter in middle England who has no link with the Labour Party beyond having voted for them to show any sort of ‘loyalty’ to whoever the current leader is. If they say they prefer Blair, they probably mean it.
98 - I don’t know how we got into this. I wasn’t arguing that Cameron should fess up and reveal all. Just that comparing journalists asking questions of Cameron over drugs is not comparable with asking questions over whether they had driven at 80mph on a motorway, or had a lapse of concentration at the wheel.
99. but Alex you don’t know who are the people’s interviewed. You’re assuming that middle England voters said they prefer Blair, but maybe it’s the opposite. You coulnd’t know from that poll. That poll doesn’t give you enough info to reach that conclusion.
FWIW Conservative (and Cameron supporters) should be glad this whole question is being dealt with now rather than once he becomes leader with the might of the Labour machine bearing down on him. People wanted to see him tested, and he is so being.
102. I would like to see him tested over his policies, not over these things.
101 - of course I don’t. But it was Roger who said it was an “interesting poll”. If it doesn’t tell you anything then it’s not interesting at all.
FWIW if Conservative voters are pro-Blair, then it seems reasonable to think that those Labour voters who are closest to the Conservative view of the world might also be pro-Blair. And that is certainly the analysis that most Blairites share. It may be an innaccurate analysis but you can’t argue against it based on the poll.
72 BV. He is on the Cameron website as a supporter. It suits his style
103 - there seems to be a consensus that policies are less important than media and public perception.
An intersting article in the Telegraph:
I was at Oxford at the same time as Dave Cameron - in fact, he was a friend of mine - but I couldn’t for the life of me tell you whether he did or didn’t inhale, snort, pop or even inject.
All I can say is that if Cameron didn’t at some stage in his mid-Eighties undergraduate years take at least the odd puff on a spliff, then it would make him so unhealthily weird and out-of-touch, he’d be the last person I’d want leading the sane, forward-looking, revivified Tory party which is going to smash New Labour at the next election.
We weren’t, by student standards, the druggiest of generations. Not as pot-kippered as the high Sixties crowd, nor yet as acid-drenched as the early Seventies one, but as heirs to the decadent Brideshead tradition - the series had been on TV in our sixth form years, which was why we chose Oxford not Cambridge - we did very much feel that there were certain standards that had to be maintained. The main one was near-perpetual drunkenness. I remember my father coming up one term and being appalled to hear that I’d often drink my first Bloody Mary around mid-morning. “Yeah, I know it’s bad,” I said. “But how else am I supposed to stop my hands shaking so much that I can’t write my essays?”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/15/ntory215.xml
104.”FWIW if Conservative voters are pro-Blair, then it seems reasonable to think that those Labour voters who are closest to the Conservative view of the world might also be pro-Blair.”
the gap between tory voters isn’t so big.
Then we’re talking about a MORI poll: they would be able to produce a poll with Clare Short as the favourite politician between tory voters and Edward Leigh as the favourite politician between Lab voters!
71 - the last time I saw KC in Sainsburys car park, Mrs C was carrying the shopping bags.
107. As someone who has never taken any drugs, I start to find irritating all those journalists (and posters) saying that if you didn’t tried them you’re not normal!
110. It’s called having strength of mind. Unfortunatly it looks like many journalists don’t have much.
110 - Quite. It’s one thing to say that when certain practices were so common one shouldn’t be blamed for joining in, another to start drawing ridiculous conclusions about people who had the sense to steer clear. As the article implies, would you be a “wierdo” if you didn’t regularly take acid in the seventies? A wierdo if you never smoked? A wierdo if you made a decision to be teetotal?
111/112. At least I could claim I didn’t frequent a British university, but you two don’t have any justification according to the Telegraph.
I think “James Delingpole” must be a pseudonym for SeanT
35. Mr Smithson your proprietorial interest in Cameron having identified his potential. Weren’t you advising your readers to cut their losses on the Chap before the Conference?
Ps 71 Who was that?
114. Some info about James Delingpole.
Here’s a review of one of his novel:
http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2004/080504/books.html
It should be a good review, but it gives me the wrong impression about the book!
103
Good point Andrea,
Do you think he will get tested on his policies, before coming leader.
One is the economy, in the Times today, they are saying a memo suggested he was more pro euro than believed.
Health,I have heard him say the conservatives were wrong regarding their policy at last election.
How is the party going to react to this if he becomes leader.
Education now Supports TUITION FEES,looks like he fought the last election,on a manifesto he helped write,in policies he did not believe in.
A quick change in policy, dont know what the wider conservative members think, without further consultation.
Looks to me like he is agreeing with Blair on a lot of things, hard to stomach for many tories on here.
117. NO what was hard to stomach was him doing many things they agreed with while leading the Labour Party, The two biggest electoral nemeses of the Tory Party Palmerston leading the Liberals in the 19th Century and Blair leading Labour in the 20th/21st Century were both cut from the same cloth of nicking Tory clothes while leading their opponents.
Has anyone read this. For those who think that Cameron doesn’t represent a sh*t or bust risk for the Tories.
113. I’ve been offered cannabis I don’t know how many times but you just have to learn how to say no. The guy who I sat next to in my history classes at school is now in prison for drug dealing. Got caught with 1000 pills in a club.
“I’ve been offered cannabis I don’t know how many times but you just have to learn how to say no. ”
A somewhat patronising attitude woody, dare I say so; somewhat reminiscent of Nancy Reagan in full flow. 50% of 16-24 year olds have smoked weed (I’ve tried it; didn’t really like it). Are you saying you are made of stronger moral fibre than the other 50%?
121 - do you subscribe to the view that you should be considered a “weirdo” and “out-of touch” if you declined?
You were certainly a weirdo if you didn’t smoke and drink or eat meat in the 60’s and 70’s in most undergraduate minds. And if you didn’t go on the odd demo then you were a fascist weirdo to boot. The term weirdo is 60’s I think. By the 70’s people were striving for weirdness and going vegetarian, buring joss sticks and smoking all sorts of odd things including licorice paper fags, sideburns that required hedge trimmers, and then when dressed appropriately, finding themselves by getting lost and ripped off in India or taking LSD from the back of stamps (talk about weird) but they still smoked and drank like fish. Sounds like today really. Even the flared trousers have made a come back. What next,Beardsley print on every wall and Che on every t-shirt?
The article has a point in that we all did things that we would not want others to know today even if today the undergraduates think its fine (or hip in the 60’s: odd that ‘cool’ has lasted the course for forty years yet square and the like have not).
When we grow up we put aside childish things but at the time we all get sucked into the tribal culture in one way or the other and if we do not go slightly mad in our youth, when can we?
107 - I recall an article by Jasper Gerard a few years ago on Blair’s years at Oxford. While his circle of friends included many dedicated pot smokers, not one of them interviewed, on or off the record, could actually remember Blair actually trying the drug, though he’d certainly been around when it was being used.
123 - blue2win, the article implies anyone who chose in their university days to avoid drugs etc should be disbarred (in his opinion) from office now for their ‘weirdness’.
121. Not at all alex - I am a liberal and respect everyone’s choice whether they choose to imbibe/inhale drugs (legal and illegal). My point is that, in the same way that those ‘uber-trendy’ types who think that only geeks don’t use drugs, those same people who choose not to use drugs must accept that the fact that those who choose to do so are not a bunch of crack whores.
125. Do bear in mind that the article was written by an ex-Oxford Tory who started using drugs because of Brideshead Revisited… Totally normal himself, eh?
Re. 112: “Quite. It’s one thing to say that when certain practices were so common one shouldn’t be blamed for joining in, another to start drawing ridiculous conclusions about people who had the sense to steer clear”.
Quite so! Reading the rest of the Delingpole article, I’m not sure it isn’t some sort of subtle satire: surely he can’t expect people to take seriously the suggestion that most Oxford students in the ’80s needed at least one Bloody Mary before they could actually do any work… Or if he *does* intend to be taken at face value, he’s kidding himself if he believes his experiences - with drink or drugs - were representative of more than a small section of the university.
For the record, when I was an undergrad at Oxford, in the late ’80s/early ’90s, I never ‘experimented’ with, or was even offered, illegal drugs. Now, I was pretty studious, but not unnaturally so; I don’t think I or most of my friends were unhealthily weird or out-of-touch (I wouldn’t would I? But certainly we weren’t in such a vanishingly small minority as the article implies).
BTW, re. 41 and 45: I’ve ‘only’ been a member of the Lib Dems for 15 years, and have lost count of the number of times the party’s imminent electoral immolation has been confidently predicted. I agree with Bullseye: however convenient that would be for our opponents, a critical mass has now been reached such that it ain’t gonna happen - whatever the relative merits of the various Tory leadership candidates.
128 - It reads to me like the the guy never took drink or drugs in his life and spent the time in the library, and is now engaged in some sort of bizarre self-hating because of what he thinks (based on second hand stories) he missed out on
So a quick recapp before the next episode of the “Cameron Cannabis” saga:
a) All students is British universities have been offered drugs.
Apparently if you refuse them, you’re a “weirdo”
b) Woody is a “weirdo”
c) Reading “Brideshead Revisited” could lead to drugs.
d) Alex could have had problems with traffic lights. The situation is not clear, but no one reads “Richmond Gurdian” anyway.
126. (Clarification: unless they are actually a bunch of crack whores)
Alex My view is that at that age we are ALL weird in our own way. I have never ‘done’ drugs as hash made me sneeze with an allergic reaction (I really suffered once in Africa where a school was clearing a back field and burning the grass, it was full of the stuff growing wild from some earlier VSO I think) and hard drugs have never attracted me. I certainly drank too much at university and, in retrospect, acted the prat and was never against the Vietnam war and wouldn’t go on demos. One good socialist told me that failure alone exempted me for a lifetime from membership of the human race. Ho-hum.
Since my twenties of course I have been exemplary in every way.
36 - Alex: I’m a Tory, he’s Labour - I’m sure you can imagine my answer to that question. But, as a politician, it is difficult to argue with three spanking election victories in succession…
43 - Anon: That may well happen. People don’t like/trust plotters. It if seems that Davis has been involved in a smear attempt on Cameron over drugs I think that is likely to backfire on him and go down very badly with most MPs.
46 - Paul: Well, naturally I disagree with what you’ve said there. Cameron has set out a broad visiion of what the party needs to do in order to become electable in the C21st political context again and in time he will set out a compelling, thorough and substantive vision for the country. You can hardly expect a detailed manifesto at this stage, from any of the candidates.
As to the subject of Lib Dem support, I agree with Mike Smithson. History shows that the Liberal vote is always the first victim of a Tory recovery. Have things changed? Possibly. You clearly think at hope so, but I have my doubts.
51 - Woody: With great respect as I know you are a committed DD man, I find it difficult to have much sympathy for Davis in this. The more I think about it and the more reaction I hear from various wings of the part, the more I am convinced that his drugs nonsense is all a whispering campaign against Cameron instigated by his opponenents - probably in the Davis camp. Those who live by the sword die by the sword.
109 - You will be pleased to know, Tabbers, that Mrs Matlock does not let me off with that sort of thing! Just this morning I was forced to carry an inordinate amount of bags. It’s a good job the boot of my car is quite large!
On the subject of this issue of “normalcy”. Of course people are not abnormal for not having tried drugs. The notion is ridiculous. The fact remains, however, that it is a very common facet of the university experience thesedays and many people did partake of it. The point is that these people are not abnormal either and should not be condemned for mistakes made in their youth.
121. I just don’t subscribe that you’re a weirdo if you don’t take drugs and it is possible to refuse to take them. If people want to take them then fine, but the ones I know who do are some of the unhappiest people I’ve ever seen.
133 - I’ve heard talk that it was all the Ken Clarke camp’s doing - it first arose in the Clarke supporting Independent apparently.
But you wouldn’t have any truck with that suggestion …
Even if you have jumped ship.
Did you read the Times article, AHM?
133.”People don’t like/trust plotters. It if seems that Davis has been involved in a smear attempt on Cameron over drugs I think that is likely to backfire on him and go down very badly with most MPs.”
Tory MPs don’t like plots?
I thought they were the best plotters!
135 - I was a Cameroon in the first place and I have re-ratted. I prefer to think of it as a homecoming.
Unfortunately for DD, once you get a reputation for being a plotter and a bruiser, it sticks. KC does not have this, and to his credit has been very forthright in telling the media off about the silliness of the issue. That is a far cry from the image of Davis put out by this interview he’s given to Amanda Platell. All indications are a Davis or a Davis/Fox operation.
137 - 90% of the Tory party LOVE plotters. The crucial “swing MPs”, the 10% who take the whole thing seriously, frown on it.
138 - I think KC might take offence at the suggestion that he doesn’t have a reputation as a bruiser
136 - Yes, I read it this morning, and I don’t see how it is particularly damaging to DC at all. You may thin that Cameron is ’sh*t or bust’ but in my view DD is all bust. He is IDS mk II and doesn’t even have the potential upside that DC and KC do. Even Frank Johnson makes this point in his Notebook entry in the Telegraph today, despite being inclined toward DD.
137 - A mostly undeserved reputation, Andrea. Plotting saddled us with IDS in 2001 - if that was a successful plot, I would hate to see a failure.
129: Well, if it matters, I probably drank more as a student than was wise (once or twice); and yes, did spend a fair amount of time in the library: the two aren’t mutually exclusive. And was at the odd party where drugs went around; but usually in a different room.
Despite your self-confessed lack of experience of drugs, your attitude is similar to what Chrisco condemns at 126.
133 - I can’t help thinking that DD has made a rod for his own back by saying how wrong it is