Is Charles really running out of time?
December 30th, 2005
-
Kennedy’s secret critics fail to impress punters
The Lib Dem leader’s firm post-Christmas response to those private critics who say, amongst other things, that he does not have the charisma of a Cameron or a Blair has reinforced the doubts of reluctant punters in the Next Lib Dem leader market.
For in spite of all the coverage there has been very little betting on his replacement. Betfair’s market has seen just £5,302 in matched bets with barely £800 going on the ambitious Home Affair spokesman, Mark Oaten. Menzies Campbell is involved in half the matched bets while Simon Hughes is at less than £500.
Gamblers are keeping their money firmly in their wallets because until something happens in relation to Kennedy there is no race. It could be four or five years before punters get a return.
-
What’s going for Kennedy is that none of his critics are prepared to go public. By his re-statement that he’s staying the only option for those wanting him out is a formal challenge - something for which so far they have not had the stomach.
Things could change quickly, of course, but with the Lib Dem’s still polling at 20% or more it is hard to make the case that Kennedy is an electoral liability. The surveys in next couple of months, particularly ICM and YouGov, could be crucial, particularly if party support drops to 16% or below.
In the meantime it is hard not to admire Kennedy’s resilience.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Hmmm… The site still needs a little work! I’m going to be working on it all day - shouldn’t go down or anything, but don’t be surprised if it looks a little different each time you come back!
I’m liking the direction it’s going in (the site, that is. Not Mark Oaten).
Keep up the good work.
Thanks Rob for all the work. I like the new way of presenting comments.
This looks cool
Once again, many thanks to Robert for all his hard work on the site…
The LibDem leadership betting market is even less liquid than stated. Betfair double-counts (or counts the stake for both backer and layer) so its reported figure should be cut in half.
In other words, less than £400 has been staked on Mark Oaten.
What is remarkable is that Kennedy’s critics even get the politics wrong. CK is popular and no-one else cares what the LibDem’s economic policy is. The budget will go through anyway.
Aside from Iraq, most of the action in the near future will be on classic Liberal ground: the constitution (reform of the Lords, and the West Lothian question) and more immediately on the power of the state versus the individual (new police powers, databases, ID cards, vehicle tracking and so on). There ought to be more than enough to keep Oaten busy at Home Affairs, not least because recreating the KGB probably will bring crime down.
John L - Kennedy is popular in the sense of being liked, but that is not the same as being a popular choice for next PM. The reason why, as you say, nobody cares what the Lib Dem economic policy is is that they don’t really see them as serious about forming a government, and Kennedy doesn’t help that impression. They give us a bit more credence on constitutional reform and individual freedom - it is home ground, money for old rope, treading water stuff for us there. But if you think those issues will decide the next election, I fear you are badly mistaken.
Robert - great work and I like the new look. Would it be possible to continue having numbers next to comments for ease of reference when the threads get long and several topics are on the go?
The conventional wisdom is that the drugs issue worked well for Cameron, in that it was a test that (so far) he passed. Kennedy is a much more cunning operator than his public image shows. If (and it is a big if, granted) CK can pull things together over the next three monbths, might it not be a similar test? The Lib Dems are not fading, despite the unrelentingly positive coverage of the Conservatives, so in a world where they do not poll less than 20%, life becomes a lot less predictable. Maybe it is Labour who have the most to fear from the coming year…
John L: I’m working on two things. Firstly, this entire site seems to be in “bold” right now, which is really annoying. Secondly, comment numbers would be nice.
Experimental comment
Didn’t work (Thought I may be able to post not in bold)
Looking nice. Comment numbers would be a definite plus, though! Thanks as always for your efforts.
Comments on other threads aren’t bold, I notice.
I know! There’s something about this post: I can’t tell if it’s in the CSS template, or in Mike’s post.
The bold is fixed now - you obviously worked it out before I did!
I suspect the CSS template is overriding the defaults for <ol> such that the comment numbers are suppressed.
Got it, I think. Towards the bottom of the CSS you have:
.commentlist li {margin: 5px 0 3px 0;
padding: 5px 10px 3px 10px;
list-style: none;
}
Try changing this to:
.commentlist li {margin: 5px 0 3px 0;
padding: 5px 10px 3px 10px;
list-style: decimal outside;
}
Thanks… now I just have to get the positioning right
Great work with the site! Well Done Robert and co.
I am still of the opinion that CK will last until at least this coming Summer and that the Liberals will use their conference as a sort of hustings, much like the conservative party did.
I think it unlikely that the liberal democrats will lose much support - do we really feel many voters will switch from Liberal - Tory? and surely nobody will be switching to Blair at his time…
If CK does survive for any length of time, surely Ming Campbell’s chance of leading the party rapidly diminishes due to his age and past health problems?
The numbering is working in IE but not in Mozilla.
Site is looking good. Well done Mike and Robert.
All working fine (positioning, non-bold, comments numbers) in Mozilla on GNU/Linux (Mandriva 2006 Free).
Well done Mike and Robert - we do appreciate the hard work.
The press are saying now that the number of Lib Dem councillors coming out against Kennedy is 386. Personally I think that’s more likely the vintage of the processor in the assassins’ computer.
Q. Where were you when they assasinated Kennedy?
A. I was in the bar for a VERY VERY long time!
We finally discovered the source of our problems: not a hacker, not the software, but a faulty network cable at the datacenter… Hopefully (please, please, please) we shouldn’t have any more problems…
Looking good so far!
I’m on IE and the numbering seems to stop at 9 then go back to zero however.
ukpaul, it doesn’t go back to zero, the margin is just too small to accomadate both numbers… Grrrr. Back to the CSS file…
Same for me.
To be precise the numbers go:
1 2 to 9 then
.0 .1 to .9 then
:0 :1 etc
Thanks for all the hard work Robert - the sites looking great. Won’t mention the numbering though!
The report about Lib Dem councillors is based on a petition website that simply asks for your name and email address - no other information asked for and no verification that any of it is valid. So how does the person running the petition know the exact number of councillors he claims has signed, I wonder … and is it more or less than the number of Mickey Mouses and William Gladstones who have “signed” too I wonder?
Gladstone’s opposing Kennedy! When a former Liberal leader like that lines up against you, then you must have no chance…
Gladstone posts on the site in a kind of celestial way, does he not?
Wan´t it Rik who first told us all about the site with this petition? I am only surprised that it has not yet been “signed” by over 100 Lib Dem MPs……
Re: :5 (25).
The “.” in say “.5″ must be the rightmost part of the “1″ in “15″.
similarly, the “:” is the rightmost part of the “2″.
The numbering seems to be working fine with the Mozilla browser but not with IE.
The site looks fantastic! My compliments to Robert and Mike. Though, I do wonder if anyone knows how to increase the font size? My eyes are a bit older than most of my fellow posters…
AHM. To get a bigger font size go into the View menu and click on text size.
Robert S This looks very nice and the hard work is really appreciated. Can I agree with AHM about the font size particularly used with italics on the posters name. A bit squinty. But the shading and the layout are really very classy (is a Tory still allowed to use ‘classy’?)
34 - This is a great improvement. I didn’t think it would be as simple as that. Thanks Mike!
John 13. You may not be aware but for 23 hours a day Rik thinks he is a Lib Dem MP. The other hour they take the cotton wool out of the mouth and he just cries!
AHM - go to Tools -> Internet options/preferences and click “ignore font sizes specified”. Then change them as you like
Mike S I use a news feeder stripper and the text size is fixed. My problem I know but there may be a lot of the chattering nattering and betting classes using similar systems to automatically keep up?
38 - Thanks, Alex. I think I’ve got it sorted now.
21 - “The press are saying now that the number of Lib Dem councillors coming out against Kennedy is 386. Personally I think that’s more likely the vintage of the processor in the assassins’ computer.”
The new layout is looking good Robert, but like AHM I am struggling with the font despite wearing my reading specs. In my case it’s the lack of contrast rather than the font size that’s troubling me. Once one reaches middle age this starts to become an issue. By way of comparison, I have no trouble reading the online newspapers, which use a similar font size to here, but they all use black on white.
This is very bad PR you know, all us Tory geriatrics complaining about the font size!
My congratulations too on the new sizzling soaraway pb.c format. We Tories don’t usually ‘do’ change (apart from dashing Dave), but….
But can yet another visually-challenged codger join the plea on enhanced “fontability”
43 - Your Grace, Wait for the inevitable ‘blind-leading-the-blind’ ribbing
JohnO as i said above, if you go into “Internet options” the four boxes at the bottom of the screen let you do whatever you want. Accessibility allows you to disable the style sheets, and fonts, colors etc lets you choose your own
46, Alex, I use Mozilla and went to tools, clicked on options, but couldn’t really proceed from there using your instructions. To be honest, I’m utterly baffled by the simplest tasks. If you have the patience to provide the complete idiot’s guide, drop me a line at john-oreilly@tiscali.co.uk . Oh, the shame…
27 - I’ve just signed the petition as Charles Kennedy from Ross, Skye and Lochaber (e-mail: charles.kennedy@libdems.org.uk). The Liberal thanked me for my vote. Truly that’s a turkey voting for Christmas.
The petition is clearly a crappy publicity gimmick. The real question is why is the BBC giving it such prominence when they must realise this too…?
47 - John O, if you have a scroll wheel on your mouse (the little roller between the buttons) then you can make the font larger just by holding down “Ctrl” on the keyboard and scrolling the wheel towards you.
BV - So you can! Many thanks. I’m terribly impressed…!
50 - you’re welcome. I found this out by accident a couple of weeks ago. I wondered what on earth I’d done!
alex - sorry to ask what may be a very ignorant question but if you go into “Internet options” and make changes as you suggest is there a risk that pages on other websites may not look “right”?
As all other websites look fine for me at the moment I am reluctant to start changing settings.
May I also add my congratulations on all the hard work done to make these improvements.
Go to Tools -> Options and go to “General” (on the left). Then click on “fonts and colors”, check the boxes for “use my fonts/colors” and change the fonts and colors as you see fit
Bookvalue Brilliant advice, it even works with my news reader. But how….? its a two pipe problem, I think.
52 - People use other sites?
It’s only really a solution if your main priority is to read things as you want them and don’t really care about the fancy graphics people put on their sites.
I think I would also prefer the default font size slightly larger.
The other thing that would be really neat is if the page width scaled with the screen size. At the moment I have quite a bit of dark blue on the left and right-hand side.
But you can’t please all of the people all of the time so I’m happy to be contradicted.
53- Thanks.
Robert S My news stripper just picked up a comment posted to an article of April 2004 on ‘Is Bush really in trouble’ stamped as published 6.16pm today.
It looked like this:
ht*p://kidsan.nerdcamp.net/rape-porn/990008/gaggedandraped.html grudgepartsreligious
by photo December 30th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
jesus, BTW, that’s really disturbing. i’ll make sure the spam filters are improved…
Robert S there is another odd post come up on ‘Punters pile onto David Davis June 21st, 2005′ which reads:
heaters…
…
by best heaters December 30th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
55. OK - thanks.
Stephern Tall - possibly at 58 - Can you give us the address of the e-petition. If you can sign it as “Charles Kennedy”, then I suspect there are many people on PBC who would like to do the same…… Vote early, vote often…..
First, thanks to Robert and Mike for all their hard work in getting us back up and running.
The Daily Mail was interesting today - not entirely unkind to Charles Kennedy and the Andrew Alexander column was very scathing in its condemnation of Cameron and his performance this far. I suspect the REAL Tories are starting to realise what kind of monster has been unleashed.
As for Kennedy, I don’t take the views of “The Liberal” or “Liberator” very seriously. They represent a strand of opinion in the Party and see themselves as some form of Liberal “conscience”. I think sometimes they forget that what happened in 1989 was a MERGER of the Liberal and Social Democrat Parties and not the absorption of the latter into the former. The Liberal Democrats have attempted to reconcile the differing political roots of the two former parties and the fact that an ex-SDP man like Kennedy was able to win a leadership election showed how far we have travelled.
It remains to be seen whether the MPs have the courage to force him out or whether a lot of this “speculation” is uninformed media tittle-tattle. A “senior figure” here, an unattributable source there and suddenly there’s a story.
I do think the Party needs to respond forcefully and vigorously to Cameron - the failure of the Major Conservatives to fully understand what Blair was about is a salutary lesson. IF, and it’s a big “if”, Cameron is abandoning long-held Tory positions on immigration, taxation and Europe, he must think that Tory activists are so desperate to get back into power that they will sell their collective soul to any “devil” who can get them there.
I don’t believe, incidentially, that Cameron is a re-incarnated Lib Dem - I believe that he is a Conservative whose political roots are as much in the policies of Newt Gingrich as they are of Margaret Thatcher. I expect Cameron to put together a Gingrich-style platform of Tory policies which will look superficially “liberal” and “friendly” but which will offer tax cuts for the very wealthy (via a flat tax) while replacing genuine aspirations to social justice with weak moralising and an abdication of responsibility (onus on voluntary and local groups as we have seen in America).
for stodge at 3(sixth time round)
Agree with your analysis. If the polls hold up for Cons over the next few months there could be very interesting times ahead. Will the Con gains in the local elections be spun as the result of the Con shift to the centre, rather than the retraction from Lab that is the reality? Anyone any estimation on how many Con gains will be seen as “failure”, thus heralding a default to usual territory?
BTW Cons in Westmorland & Lonsdale choosing their PPC on 7th January, and Tim Collins (remember him?) is still not fully opening his door to his former friends. Rumour is that there are only males on the short-list.
Robert S More oddities (my asterisks so as not to give these nasties unnecessary publicity) as:
Comment on Olympic market jitters as the hours tick away by nches
ht*p://kidsan.nerd******.***/rape-porn/*********/amatuerrapepictures.html clungglisteningkeyboard
Today 6:39 PM
Comment on ..and to Charles and Sarah a child will be born.. by mowing
http://ustrak.isgre.**/chubby-*******/****/fatnakedb***ches.html jerksmascotreturn
Today 6:36 PM
Stodge @63, Pray tell how Andrew Alexander is any more a REAL Tory than those of us, activists of many years standing, who look forward with excitement to the “unleashing” of new strategies and policies over the next few years.
Of course, neither Cameron nor the Conservative Party are going to be’reincarnated’ LibDems (Heaven forbid), but I’m reasonably sure that elements of liberalism, possibly focused on social policy, will feature comfortably with pragmatic Toryism. I also doubt that Newt Gingrich or his cohorts will be much of role models in this process.
How you LibDems choose to react is of course entirely your business and I wouldn’t want to intrude into private grief
66 - Totally agree John O. I’m very much looking forward to the next few years. And i’m pretty sure I’m a real Tory!
Season’s Greetings and best for the new year to you all
63/66 Stodge and John, tbh, I am over the moon that DC has already allowed the vitriol of the Daily Mail to be vented - his policies, especially the immigration one announced this week, make perfect modern day sense (politics aside), and run completely contra to all the Mail believes in. So of course they will knee jerk against him.
There are very few people I know who read the Mail and believe its political standpoint. If DC is annoying them, he is doing something very very right in my eyes.
Oh, and Rob - congrats on the wonders you have done with the site yet again - there is still a margin error on the new numbering system within IE, but this is a huge amount you hve implemented over the holidays - did you get any form of break at all??!!
re 65. The site has been rebuilt and some of our spam defences need to be adapted for our new operating software.
The new software makes it much much easier for us to manage the spam
There are still a few rough edges in the way the site looks but I’m really pleased with the way the comments section here looks. I think it’s much easier to read.
I’m less sure about our blue colour theme but I suppose it is in keeping with the times
Stodge (no idea what number post it is): “an abdication of responsibility (onus on voluntary and local groups as we have seen in America)”.
Nice to see someone noticing this Cameron policy - one he has stressed since day one and yet virtually everyone has ignored.
However, the involvement of the voluntary sector in public policy formulation and service delivery is somewhat more complex than an abdication of responsibility. The voluntary sector has many strengths over government - an innate knowledge and experience of the problems being addressed, an ability to tailor services to individual needs, a propensity for innovation. In return, government has some advantages of the voluntary sector - ability to raise greater (and steadier) funds, the tendency to make services available to all, not just a selected few. Thus it makes perfect sense to merge the two sectors (and even involve the profit-making sector) and it was a great crime of John Major’s government to ignore evidence of the benefits of doing so.
Responsibility for programmes such as the NDLP and Sure Start still lies with the government - although this could be taken further and in the spirit of Direct Democracy these programmes can be localised, as they often are in the US.
Season’s greetings!
If Cameron is going to capitalise on his various probes on policy over the last couple of weeks, he’s going to have to find a theme to underpin them if they’re not going to run into the sand, and I’d expect the New Year to be the best time to do this.
Re: Comments various which instead of working out numbers, I’ll attribute directly to the contributor:
John O: First, my comment relates to Alexander’s comments. he obviously takes the view that Cameron has gone too far especially on immigration. Of course, nothing Cameron has said is policy - it’s more idea or thought or stream of consciousness if you like.
As for your dislike of my reference to Newt Gingrich, the latter’s 1994 manifesto was hugely successful in sweeping the Republicans into power in both the Senate and Congress. The “Contract for America”, as I believe it was called, is, a document, which, I believe, will be at the root of much of what Cameron is proposing under the umbrella of “compassionate Conservatism”. It’s a document conservatives and liberals probably ought to look at.
Finally, thanks for the lack of cogent analysis on the LDs - it would be nice to have the occasional interesting, constructive analysis from a Tory activist (and I know you can do it if you REALLY try !!)
Max & Milky Bar Kid: It’s strange that we have now reached the point that Tory activists seek and welcome the opprobium of the Daily Mail. That may not be however how the average Tory voter (both actual and prospective) sees it. If the Mail’s hostility continues and intensifies, it may be a different story.
Julian H: Thanks - I’d picked this up as an example of how Cameron seeks his political inspiration not from traditional Conservative values but from those of the Republican Party. As to the substantive segment of your comments, you’re entirely correct. However, it doesn’t always work that way. Let me offer an example I was told a few months ago by a friend who works for a Tory-run County Council. The Council was seeking to improve its disabled access provision in its buildings as part of measures required to meet its obligation under the Disabiility Discrimination Act (DDA). It set up a steering group and enlisted the help of the local Access Forum, a voluntary group part-funded by the Council. Initially, things went well but one of the Access Forum committee began to seek a more overtly controlling role in deciding where the funds needed to be spent. It was no coincidence that the projects favoured by the Access Forum were those in the immediate neighbourhood of where this activist lived. The Council resisted, the Access Forum imploded and the activist, after trying to take the Council to court and failing, stormed off in a huff.
Lesson: there is a difference between democratically-elected public bodies, spending public money across a totality of services and voluntary groups interested in very specialised issues. A balance needs to be struck and voluntary groups, while they can lobby and influence, have to accept the necessary prioritisation of often-limited resources and the fact that the Council is mandated to take these decisions.
The voluntary sector has always been involved in welfare delivery - almshouses go back to the Middle Ages! Julian H. rather gives the agenda away by talking about “merging” sectors - as ever, politicians of all hues regard the ability to take credit for other people’s efforts as a core competence…
The localisation of standards is one of the problems the U.S. welfare system has and in so small a country as ours is in reality no more than a dog whistle for the abolition of welfare. Young single high earners who “hope to die before they grow old” (of whom there may be one or two around here :)) may yearn for the remorseless application of Gresham’s Law in social terms but I suspect that with an ageing electorate facing years of relative poverty in retirement they will go on yearning as far as all the serious parties are concerned.
But if the electorate wants national standards, it has to pay. In some areas doubtless the “partnership + monitoring” model (which began in social housing with the Housing Corporation) will provide the best value to the tax-payer, and in others direct provision will be cheaper. Sadly, it is not in the interests of politicians of any stripe to talk in these terms.
62(?), John13 - the petition is at http://www.kennedymustgo.co.uk (and my take, fwiw, is at http://oxfordliberal.blogspot.com/2005/12/that-charles-kennedy-petition.html).
63(?) - afaik, The Liberal is absolutely nothing to do with the Lib Dems (though I gather its editor is an approved candidate). The Liberator is, however, more reflective of activist/grassroots opinion, with a fair diversity both in those who write for it, and who read it.
To add to Stodge’s story (which is very typical) - it is by no means unknown for that type of lobbyist, activist or whatever to have been a losing candidate at the last local election…
It’s the 25% strategy.
73 - Did I say anything about welcoming the hostility of the Mail? I read the Mail every day. Andrew Alexander is a columnist he doesn’t have to represent the editorial stance of the Mail. I objected to the idea that his are the views of REAL Tories as opposed to those of us who are perfectly happy with what DC is doing.
oooh lovely new look chaps!
Well I can’t see the speculation stopping until CK goes and the Lib Dems can’t move forward until the speculation ends… ergo I can’t see CK lasting more than 3 months.
I am less convinced of the length of Mr Camerons honeymoon period. I suspect that in a few months people will realize that despite the tinsel and glitter he’s still a Tory and the party he leads is still the Tory party or perhaps even worse, his own activists will think he’s a Lib Dem who has sneaked in under the wire. In either case politics will return to normal and the Tories will sink back to their 33% mark with Labour on 37% ish and the Lib Dems in the early 20’s. Charlie can then put his feet up again pour himself a large scotch and wait for the next drama. Probably Brown’s honeymoon.
Mike, Robert - congrats on all the hard work you’ve put in on the site redesign. Do I take it that the new blue colour scheme is a nod to the significant Tory majority here that now graces (darkens?
) our portals? 
Stodge,
1. The words “REAL Tories” were yours and gave the unmistakable impression that the likes of Alexander, an admirer of Enoch Powell IIRC, are the only authentic Tories. On this, you are wrong.
2. I happened to start working in Washington DC from May 1995, a few months after the GOP stormed to victory in House and Senate with the Contract for America. This was their legislative programme (most components were never actually enacted). Overall, I find it mean-spirited and in places down-right nasty. I would be surprised and dismayed if it formed the basis of the UK style “compassionate Conservatism”.
3. I am fascinated by both Tory and Labour parties. The LibDems just don’t excite the analytical grey cells. So I leave that endeavour to others.
THE CONTRACT FOR AMERICA
1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)
2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, “good faith” exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer’s “crime” bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)
3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children’s education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)
5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)
6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)
7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)
8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)
9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: “Loser pays” laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)
10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description)
77 - Actually, if the current polls are to be believed, it’s more like the 37-38-39 percent strategy, Alex.
Love the blue colour scheme, by the way!
I loathe the GoP with a passion yet I am a Tory. To suggest that Toryism and Republicanism are the same is frankly ludicrous.
Look up what republican means if you don’t believe me
Though with respect to last year’s election I enjoyed the states turning red while ITV/Bob Worcester looked increasingly ridiculous!
The site of Bob Worcester humiliating himself is so wonderful I now have it on tape. I have never disliked a pollster so much, but then a pollster has never been so political as our Bob.
85 - I thought the best bit was the general despondency at the Beeb as it became clear that Bush had won. Jim Naughtie sounded like he was talking through gritted teeth.
Stephen Tall ( at ? 5). I tried it, and it would now appear that Charles Kennedy has now voted twice for his own removal …. I suggest that the person responsible be removed asap from the Lib Dem candidates´ list, not because he wants Kennedy to go (a point which the Lib Dems are now discussing), but because he appears to be pretty clueless about how things work.
I have to confess, at first I though it was one of our Rik´s merry little pranks.
86 - I am very jealous! But though the thought of another four years of Bush wasn’t exactly filling me with joy I blame the Democrats for choosing a plank of wood with hair for their candidate.
But yes… Bob was wonderful. I had to avoid him at a post- (UK)election bash due to my having an almost uncontrollable urge to laugh in his face re the yank election.
I though getting drunk in the corner with an Irish diplomat was more wise
I can think of many errors that George Bush’s government has committed, but I’m at a bit of a loss to see which part the “Contract with America” would be objectionable to the average British Conservative.
Again, I’ll use names rather than trying to second-guess the numbers:
Sean Fear: Thank you, Sean, for pointing out that the “Contract to America” (if suitably amended) represents a starting-point for the evolution of a British form of “compassionate conservatism”.
John O: I’m prepared to accept that there are other Tories than Alexander. I suspect he regards himself as much of a Tory as you do and he is opposed to much of what Cameron is saying. This paradox is something I have heard from other Tory-inclined in the past couple of weeks. Some think Cameron is wonderful, others consider he is betraying “true” Conservatism - one particularly Right-wing Tory acquaintance of mine said he was leaving the Party to join UKIP precisely because of what he called “Cameron’s conversion to Blairism”.
David R: Yes, a lot of British Tories aren’t friends of the American Republican Party but the fact is serious and substantial links exist between them (look at how the Conservatives tried to help Bush Senior against Clinton in 1992). While the British Conservatives have been out of office since 1997, American Republicans have enjoyed two Presidential successes and continued control of the main legislative chambers. It’s no surprise that young activists like Osborne, Vaizey and Gove have sought political inspiration across the pond and will look at the electoral techniques of Karl Rove for example. The Republican Party has changed too and substantially since the 1960s and 1970s. It is, arguably, the most successful political machine in the western world at present and has successfully ousted the Democrats in a number of key states. You may not like the idea but I am convinced a lot of the strategic thinking in the Cameron camp owes more to the American Republicans than traditional British Conservative thinking.
Stodge, I appreciate your ‘preparedness’. The Conservative party is a broad church whose congregation can encompass the Alexanders, Fears, Matlocks, and O’Reillys etc, albeit it with tensions at times - c’est la vie.
I think the essence of the disagreement about the 1994 Contract (11 years is a long long time in politics)can be encapsulated in Cameron’s sound-bite about “Loving Britain as it is, not what it was”. The tenor of Newt Gingrich et al was a kind of ‘Back to Basics’ with a vengeance: remember the talk then of ‘cultural wars’, and a palpable anger by the powerful religious right about the US’s moral direction.
Some Tories in the UK doubtless feel the same: others either wholeheartedly endorse - or are striving purposefully to endorse - Cameron’s emollience on these issues. Yes, we will have to wait to see how all this translates into specific policies.
But without (hopefully) being unfair to Sean; whereas he appears suspicious and apprehensive - I think he recently described himself as a pessimist - I am rather more upbeat about the future in which the word ‘monster’ doesn’t feature.
Stodge @ Something-3: Sorry for the delay in reply (and given my current indisposition, probably the quality of it too).
Thanks for that example; as this is an area of interest for me it’s always good to hear how it’s working (or not working) in practice. My understand of that case is this - the involving of non-governmental organisations is basically a move from hierarchy to network (the form of network is debatable). Networks of course involve parties that can have completely different core objectives (as the local council and the voluntary organisation might); however, if they share just one objective then collaboration is reached. A trait of networks is the inevitable bartering and battling that will go on between the actors; in theory this won’t result in a fall-out of the project because the shared interest will remain. In practice, as your example shows, this isn’t necessarily the case! I’ll bear it in mind.
bxksddil…
qxzstxtsqe tcomukpba oncojbtl dtxonlouyq …