Would the Tories really do better with Hague?
July 28th, 2007
-
Assessing the alternatives to Cameron: 1. Hague
Ths is the first in a series of articles in which I will look at the possible alternatives to David Cameron should, for whatever reason the party find itself choosing another leader.
This is something that I don’t think is likely to happen but it just might. The potential of several figures will be examined before I reveal the identity of the person I have good reason to believe that Labour most fears.
And that person is definitely not the former leader and current shadow foreign secretary, William Hague. His claim has been reinforced by an article from the founder of YouGov and Jeffrey Archer’s former campaign manager, Stephan Shakespeare. He suggested that Rupert Murdoch had decided that he wanted Hague back in the charge and his media outlets might promote such a line.
- I don’t buy this. During the recent troubled weeks Cameron has been getting reasonable support from the Sun and its editorial after this week’s PMQs must have been encouraging
If Brown continues to oppose an EU referendum he could see increasing hostility.
The reason why Hague would be a disastrous choice for the Tories is that Labour would be able to paint it as a return to the past. Cameron has shown that he can secure broader appeal for his party which is vital if any progress is to be made. Because Hague’s been there before it would be much harder for him to be seen as a change figure.
Quite simply Hague has got too much baggage. My guess is that Hague, who was very bruised by the 2001 election knows this and would not want to submit himself to the experience again.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
DC was widely supported, not condemned, on any questions last night. Maybe this really is just a media creation. I dont know any tories that think it would be a good idea to replace DC.
But there are plenty who wish he had never been elected in the first place, including lots who voted for him.
Hmmm. This is interesting. What’s going on in the Tory party? Has DC really acquired the fatal loser tag? Who is the wolf/Fox in sheep’s clothing? What influence does Stephan Kukowski (aka Shakespeare) have?
Too many questions, not enough answers…
1 - I agree. There is absolutely no appetite nor discussion that I know of along these lines. DC has reached voters we not reached for a very long time. The party recognises that DC has taken us from the brink of irrelevance, back to the brink of electability.
We trounced Labour in real elections only a couple of months ago. The recent PA analysis posted yesterday shows we continue to do that on a weekly basis.
We are caught in the simplistic “right vs wrong” media storm that says “Brown is Good”, ergo “DC must be bad”. This will change in time. DC has been the media golden boy for 18 months, and this was bound to change at some point.
This would make an interesting article Mike - but a whole series? My guess is people will go very quickly o/t once we’ve done Hague and Davis…
Hague has yet to prove he can organise anything. He dropped Cameron in it over the grammar school issue by not bothering to check what Willetts was going to say. He is in charge of the North and next May will be a litmus test for how well he has done there.
Hague is one of the wittiest speakers in politics, though that has its dangers - as Tony Banks found, being extremely funny eventually typecasts you to the point that people are disappointed if you say something serious. More importantly, he’s a swift thinker, which enabled him to outpoint Tony Blair at PMQ on several occasions, something nobody else ever really managed.
His tragedy is that he was leader at a time when the party was completely unelectable, so eventually he came to seem the amusing champion of a lost cause. The symbolism of going back to him would be powerful, and despite his personal qualities I don’t think it’s correct that Labour would be fearful at the prospect. The fact that he bangs on about Europe a lot would be helpful, too, not because people necessarily disagree but because they’re just not very interested. However, he’s intelligent enough to know that and I suspect as leader would take a few steps to distance himself from his past persona.
As for Cameron, he not currently under real threat, but he’s effectively on notice: Tory MPs think he’s made a few serious mistakes recently but they see the dangers of moving against him and are ostentatiously rallying around. He isn’t in danger now. If the Tory poll ratings got worse, or his personal ratings started to fall well behind the party, he would be, as his raison d’etre for many Tories is that he might be a winner. In the same way, Tony Blair would have been under threat in 1995 if our ratings had slumped.
Just to clarify - I misread Miker’s article to say that Hague was the man we most fear. Mike actually says the opposite.
Hague as leader again - not a chance. Agree with topic that there’s too much baggage and history, and with Nick at 6 that Europe would be a hammer blow. He would just be too easy to attack, blast to the past etc.
And I think he’s shrewd enough to know this.
I just hope that Mike’s knight in shining armour isn’t going to be George Osborne. Still convinced he’s the master strategist Mike?
But this is all tittle-tattle. Cameron is safe as houses for now.
8 Erm…those houses you have in mind wouldn’t be in Tewkesbury, would they Tpfkar?
This is a non-article about a non-subject.
I have no time or sympathy for the Tory leadership or Cameron, but the constant perpetuation of the Cameron under serious pressure slant that pb has now adopted - and is likely to continue to perpetuate for some time if we have a ’series’ of articles about his possible successor - is seriously skewing the non-bias of the site.
There is every reason - if not more - to have a series on who might replace the far more under pressure Ming, but I haven’t seen much about that at all this year.
Jon at 2,
There are also those who didn’t vote for him who are pleased he’s there - like me.
Then again, I haven’t bought into the current media narrative and have watched policies and policy direction unfolding - I like the direction he’s chosen.
I would strongly recommend that he get better at PR - Brown’s PR machine is far better (then again, it’s far more practiced).
No, I do n’t think this would be a good idea. (a)I think it would be crazy to change from DC and (b) I do n’t think there’s any genuine desire for it in the party. That’s the view of the more thoughtful journalists - speaking of which I get the impression that the anti-DC barrage of the past week is dying down a bit. Very good article by Matthew Parris in the Times to-day. There’s still the Mail - “after two embarrassing by-election defeats”. If I did n’t know the context I’d assume this was about two seats the Tories had *held and lost* rather than two they did n’t have a hope in.
There already seems to be a pretty strong consensus on here that Hague won’t be leader again - and I’d add my name to that opinion. His period of office has perhaps unfairly gone down in the common political assessment as a disaster. While it was far from a success, I’m not sure it was that bad (though there’s a strong argument to say that Ken Clarke would have been a better choice in 1997, with Hague taking over in 2001). He kept the Tories just about in the game, and carried out much needed reforms of the party.
But he will forever be tainted with the 1997-2001 years and for that reason is unlikely to make a comeback, for the reasons Nick P outlines in a very good analysis. I do think that there is scope for Hague to move to a more prominent shadow cabinet position, but that’s about it. Like David Davis, Hague’s a politician that a lot of people can agree with what they’re saying, and can be highly effective in parliament, but doesn’t seem to quite connect with the public in the way needed for a potential PM. That’s a shame - he’d be good at the job. That said, both could do with a bit more coverage in the North, where they do have a better public appreciation and where Cameron isn’t quite pushing the buttons yet.
The only way I could see him ending up in No 10 would be if Cameron won and then had to step down mid-term. That would eliminate the need to win an election without a track record, but that’s a lot of speculation a long way down the line.
A whole series? Jesus Christ Mike! Where will it end up? Boris? Tony Blair?
I’d have thought the only way Hague could make it back would be if he did another job of equal weight first, and made a success of it - either one of the main offices of state in a Tory government or something reasonably important outsite British politics like EU Commissioner. Without something like that, he’s going to look like a tired retread.
Having said that, the press like a good comeback story, and if he somehow managed to get close to leadership of the party in a situation that made it look like he might actually win, the momentum behind the appearance of success might be enough. The problem is that most of the scenarios where he gets to lead the Tories involve them already having lost all their momentum…
[10] I have some sympathy with that point of view. For better or worse, the Tories have to stick with Cameron for at least one General Election because his was a well-managed accession to office - indeed, arguably the best service Howard gave his Party was in refusing to quit as soon as he’d lost (as indeed Hague did) but staying, no doubt at some personal inconvenience, to give his Party every chance of finding the best man (can’t say person yet, either because our politics are chauvinist or because women are too bright to want to lead political parties in this country) for the job.
For the Tories to dump Cameron would be an admission that they wish to be an oppositionist party of the UKIP or Respect type - it won’t happen.
Sir Ming, on the other hand, is the beneficiary of a leadership crisis (this is the charitable way of putting it) and were he to decide to go, or come under pressure to do so, it is open to him to emulate Howard in the same way and for the same reason, i.e. damage control. Whether he goes or stays, the Lib Dems seem on course to lose a third of their Parliamentary Party at the next G.E., indeed, as a Party they seem resigned to this fate.
13 - Hague is still very young. He could easily become leader again some day, although it would probably be in the circumstances where the Tories have had a lengthy period in Govt. He won’t be Gordon’s age until 2017! That’s a hell of a long time away. If Michael Howard can become leader a mere 8 years after 1997 then it would be ludicrous to suggest that the same couldn’t happen to Hague in 2017, especially after a lengthy period as Foreign Sec or Chancellor or something.
1 - I was very struck by that too. After hearing a pretty reasonable debate on the topic from the panel, the Oxfordshire audience on Any Questions overwhelmingly backed David Cameron’s decision to visit Rwanda.
On the panel itself, Peter Tatchell was extremely supportive of the move whilst even Hilary Benn managed to ration himself to just one snide remark.
Nadine Dorries drew attention to the time that David Cameron had spent visiting the floods prior to his departure for Africa.
Finally, I think it was Charles Moore who commented that David Cameron had been on the ground seeing what was happening before “Gordon Brown had even looked out of the window and noticed that it was raining”.
I suggest that those who think that Cameron called this one wrongly should pop over the the Any Questions website and listen to this week’s programme - they’ll learn what real people are thinking.
Mr Herdson to be fair to Hague that period 1997-2001 no one could touch Blair. The Economy ticked over nicely, Blair could just shrug off things like Ecclestone because people were desperate to believe in him. It is true on paper KC by his sheer character woud have done better, maybe taken you past 200 Seats. But in practice who knows Blair would have had a field day driving a wedge between him and his Party on Europe. Throw in JM’s flappping white coat brigade, and no one can know it would in reality have turned out better.
That said th John Howard example in Australia is interesting. Perhaps Mr Drake could tell us more. He was similarly badly beaten and written off but bounced back. But for Hague way too soon. Ten years after 2001 before the memories fade enough. But only then probably I think if as Paul Linford says the Tories are in power. Hague thinks I think that he’s done his stint in the Trenches as Leader of the Oppositon and simply does not want that experience happening again
10. Sound words from Pimpernel. I am really disappointed in you Mike. You have declared a financial interest in a contest, so now you’re going to blatantly ramp your book trying to create a division where none exist?
As many Tories are thinking of challenging DC as wanted to unseat GB - less, in that at least a stalking horse showed for that one.
We already know the name of the man Labour most fear. Ask 1227 former Labour councillors. His name’s David Cameron.
Do they have “real people” in the Question Time audience? I thought they were all political obsessives and many party members of one sort or another.
10 and 20- I hung back - I was thinking the editor can choose what topics he likes but actually I agree with you and should have said that as well!
Though I’m not saying it will happen I’d point to the example of another right-winger in Australia, one John Howard. I believe he lost the leadership twice before coming back a third time and winning four general elections in a row. I think that’s right(?).
16 Even the pessimists amongst LDs (amongst whom I count myself) don’t expect to lose a third of our seats, particularly now the polls more fairly reflect David Cameron’s achievements. The university type seats we gained from Labour I mostly fancy us to hold for years to come now.
23 I think most people had that as a worst case scenario for you. I.e only if those Tory Poll leads bounce back to 5%+ leads, given that you have roughly it seems 40 that are practically untakeable thanks to personal votes. Even that scenariodidn’ take into account the likelihood of you picking up a few more Labour seats in compensation if they were struggling
I rather feel that the many Lib Dems here would be better off sorting out their own issues with Sir Menzies. Frankly most of this is a smokescreen enthusiastically stired up to take the heat off Sir Menzies.
21 - I’m talking about Any Questions, not about Question Time. There’s a whole world of difference between the quality of debate on the two.
Any Questions is an intelligent political discussion programme. Question Time is a joke.
‘If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly’ Thanks for that one Will, cheques in the post.
I’m inclined to agree with another poster that you’re showing a bit of uncharacteristic partisan bias here. MC is at least as much likely to be booted as DC but we have no threads about the runners and riders to replace him.
Especially with an early election looking likely there is zero chance of the Tories dumping DC. A coronation is impossible ;there is no MH waiting in the wings. Fraser Cameron’s article in the Spectator says it all; TINA. There is no sensible alternative. Hague has the baggage but there are problems with all the other possibles and this article does a good job of pointing them out.
If GB gives DC a chance to recover by bottling an early election I think the Party Conference could be a very effective occasion for relaunching and restoring Party morale and to some extent the confidence of the public.
Mike perhaps you should have linked to this Oborne article in today’s Mail to emphasise tiyr point.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=471394&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=382
I too think this is silly-season stuff, and we’re not even in August.
Hague is an excellent speaker, a seriously clever bloke, and ever more personable as the years go by. He seems to have grown into his skin - the bald head is less weirdly fetal on a man in his forties. He’s an asset to the Tories on the front bench, but leader again?
No. At least, not for a long long time - which in politics is five years minimum.
This Tory leadership kerfuffle is a storm in a teacup. No, it’s not even that, it’s a rain-shower in a thimble.
Brown has bounce. Cameron has hit a rough patch. Sure. But all Brown has done is stop people gambling in Salford and he’s being hailed as Abe Lincoln. Cameron slightly mistimes a visit to Rwanda and he’s been classed as a bigger political dunce than Walter Mondale.
Get over it. Nobody cares but us wonks. Two months ago Labour tanked in the elections and their membership is heammorhaging.
When the floodtides of excitement recede from our isolated Tewkesbury of political self-absorption, then we will see what real damage Brown has done to Cameron. That won’t be till the Autumn.
[23][24] If you hold 40 you’ve lost 23, which is more or less a third. Roughly speaking, back to 1997 plus the “university type” seats John speaks of.
[23][24] If you hold 40 you’ve lost 23, which is more or less a third. Roughly speaking, back to 1992 plus the “university type” seats John speaks of.
28: To be fair to Mike on his choice of topic, the next leader of the Conservative Party is far more likely to be PM than the next leader of the Liberal Democrats - making it a much more interesting thing to speculate about.
Also, the Tories have more interesting factional politics and their internal quarrels are generally more amusing to watch.
19. I’d agree with all that. Hague’s did a good job in very difficult circumstances, but the principal memories of his term are twofold - the very early days of the baseball cap episode, and the final days of a second Labour landslide. The bit in between where he held the party together, saw good local and European results - the local results being the foundation for a number of the seats regained in 2005 - undertook necessary internal reforms and for all the criticism of his campaign, won his case on the Euro, have received less attention.
How things would have panned out under Clarke is anyone’s guess. It’s obvious that Blair would have used the Euro to divide Clarke from the majority of the party, though whether Brown would have gone as far as to allow a referendum is questionable: I don’t think he would (once a government calls a referendum, it has to win it for the sake of credibility; to ‘win’ that one would have meant a policy blow Brown probably wouldn’t have accepted). If that issue could have been managed, he would have provided the party with a credible alternative PM and a likable bloke as leader at a time when that was needed. But it didn’t happen so we’ll never know.
[31][32] I’ve done it again, sh*t, blast & b*gg*r
Mike, is Boris the man that you think Labour secretly fears the most?
30 Spot on, SeanT.
I see you have your sensible hat on this morning.
How’s the little girl? Very well, I trust.
Hardly anyone noticed that Cameron went to Rwanda or did the flood visits, so no great gain or loss - bigger stories in the news and better things to worry about. Besides, it should be possible for an opposition party to function without its leader in the country for a couple of days.
On the subject of party leaders and the floods, has Ming said anything or has he not noticed as it’s not flooded in Scotland or Westminster?
29, coldstone,
Oborne is writing what he wants to be true, and trying to make it so by persuading a chunk of the Tories heartlands.
Not gonna work. He’s been peddling it for a while now, and anyone with any ounce of objectivity sees it rather differently.
His thesis is something like well, let’s pretend that this isn’t a bounce, or the silly season, but is a correct reflection of what people are going to do - this is the underlying real value. No “Brown Bounce”, no positive media coverage influence, no attacks on Cameron - the latest polls are the real baseline.
This means that the Tories are in trouble and the actual election will probably be worse. Oh goody, I’ll get what I want - the destruction of the Tories and their replacement by a party that will do everything that I believe in. Yay! As long as my thesis is true. Which it must be. Because I want it to be true
… I may have paraphrased a little …
38.”On the subject of party leaders and the floods, has Ming said anything or has he not noticed as it’s not flooded in Scotland or Westminster? ”
I think he went to Hull
And your next article Mike will be the effect of brining Mrs Thatcher back as leader no doubt.
Your LibDem skirt is really showing this morning.
Meanwhile, in the real world,
“Hans-Gert Poettering, president of the European Parliament and a close ally of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, made the admission in a letter to Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the discarded EU Constitution……. that the new treaty, while complicated, would preserve the constitution by a different, more indirect method.”
37. She’s very well Peter, thankyou. Almost walking, pointing at things a lot, and saying ‘gah!’ every three seconds. Bless her little Tescos sleepsuit.
To remove my sensible hat for a moment, and replace it with my bonkers beret, I note the Sun is gunning for Brown again on Europe:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,31-2007340879,00.html
I make this the third editorial IN A ROW to savage Brown for trying to deny a referendum. They are like a terrier with a rat in its jaws. Note also the coded signal to Cameron - campaign vigorously for a referendum and you will have the Sun’s support.
There is also a lead editorial in today’s Times demanding a referendum:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article2155385.ece
How much of this can Brown stand? He may hope its going to go away. He may think the public don’t particularly care (and they don’t - yet). But the papers do care, fiercely, and the campaign for a vote hasn’t properly started yet.
Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold. He will have to grant a plebiscite or face annihilation in the European elections and hideous publicity right up to the General Election.
The man who betrayed the British people! The man who reneged on his solemn promise! Not very nice.
32 I know that. Just trying to point out that that is their absolute baseline which is quite high, meaning they would be probably be a bit higher stilll even on a not good night barring an Electoral Tsunami
“Ths is the first in a series of articles in which I will look at the possible alternatives to David Cameron ”
Will there be a piece on Dinky too?
Interesting article Mike, and I am now curious to wonder who you think Labour most fears. (Sean perhaps
)
I agree though that Cameron is not actually under threat, and regretably William Hague has too much bagage.
44 Picked you up at 14 on previous thread I think
41. Quite, but you don’t quote the very worst bit of the Poettering letter:
“The new European Union Treaty has been designed to “keep the advances” of the old constitution “that we would not have dared present directly”, a senior Brussels figure, Hans-Gert Poettering, has admitted.”
Are they secretly working for UKIP, these people?? It’s hard to think of a better way to ensure a British referendum than to keep admitting the Treaty is a fraud, explicitly designed to hoodwink the people.
Unbelievable.
Note to Labour politicians reading this blog: just give us a vote, and all the pain and embarrassment will go away. Just do the right thing. It’s always best in the end.
42 Editorial’s are not the Big artillery in the Sun’s arsenal. The frontpage is. We’ll know they mean Business for sure only when they go for Brown bigtime on the front page. I’m still not as convinced as you obviously are about how far they intend to push this
Ming has visited Hull twice. Quite effective I thought. All politicans want to visit when the cameras and flood waters are there but often the most difficult work is done after the publicity has died down. Good for him to have waited.
Question Time is now, sadly, a joke. I went once and vowed never to go again. Auidience full of political obsessives like me. Completely unrepresentitive.
Re. Cameroon. While I would love to see him fall off his bike and then crushed by the following car I do accept he’s the victim of media hysteria. The leader of the opposition should be making big trips abroad. Rwanda is an excellent choice if we are serious about africa. All this media froth about him being under threat will blow over.
47
How can Brown give a referendum now having told us “its not needed”, “it doesnt transfer power”, “its not the constitution” etc etc
By doing so he would show himself to be as much of a liar as Bliar and that surely would fatally wound him for an upcoming election?
How can he retain any credibility if he grants a referendum? He has lied to the public, lied to parliament and reneged on a manifesto promise already.
44 - I see a guest article from Andrea coming
48. You don’t think three steaming editorials in a row is a “bit of a hint” then?
lol
The Sun will only wheel out the front pages when it gets crucial, and when it is absolutely necessary. These editorial are just early warning shots across the bows to Brown - give us a vote or expect our fierce opposition. They are also winks and nudges to Cameron - you can expect our help if you hard-pedal the EU issue.
Ratification and parliamentary scrutiny won’t start for several months at least. It’s then you can expect front pages in the Sun.
Remember the one they gave Blair?
“Is This The Most Dangerous Man in Britain”?
That’s when Blair was trying to force through the Constitution without a referendum. Soon after that, Blair folded.
Brown can expect the same treatment, maybe worse - because he is breaking an explicit promise to the people. He will be mauled.
Very short answer - no, look at last time he was leader for proof.
As for Murdoch, I don’t give a tinker’s cuss what he thinks, he doesn’t, and shouldn’t, run the country. The sooner we get a politician elected explicitly standing against what Murdoch wants the better. If not we will remain a democracy barely worthy of the name.
42 SeanT
As you know, I’m an incurable pro-European but we agree fully on the need for a referendum. Personally I would appreciate the opportunity to tackle the anti-Europe brigade in open debate instead of having to put up with the constant barrage of anti-EU propaganda put out at the behest of newspaper owners of non-UK origins and extremely questionable motives.
I accept that such a referendum would likely produce a no vote but I would prefer that to going ahead with no proper mandate and the incessant whining of gainsayers.
Mike states that he doesn’t feel it’s likely Cameron will be replaced but that it just might happen.
If Brown were to go to the country soon and increased the Labour majority or at least held the current lead, then Cameron could well be replaced.
Not likely but far from impossible. So a reasonable case for speculating about a possible successor.
Re 30, SeanT, Love it!
42 SeanT
PS - Glad to hear you are getting on fine with the little lady.
From experience, girls are much easier to bring up than boys, until they get to about fifteen, when they suddenly get very much more difficult.
Enjoy while it lasts.
52 It maybe a hint, but it is pretty minor. We haven’t even seen the intermediary step after that. Namely some hard hitting stuff on page 2. You maybe right, but we haven’t seen it yet
Everybody says they care about the EU in opinion polls in the same way people would support birching litter bugs if asked the right way. The bottom line is this though. Nobody really cares. Opposition to the EU may be very wide but its very shallow. If the tories want to go back to banging on about it then good. Thwow in ” Prision Works” and we are laughing.
I have it from unimpeachable sources at Smithson Towers (Northcliffe suite) that the Tory saviour who will unleash terror and dismay in Labour ranks and bring the Honeybroon to an abrupt and dismal end is…
….Sir Nicholas Winterton.
50. He will do it exactly the same way that Blair did - as a simple bare-faced U-turn. Remember the howls of derision Blair suffered in the Commons when he announced the vote - he couldn’t even bring himself to say the word “referendum”. It was very embarrassing - for about two minutes.
Much more importantly it got the tabloids back on side, and shot the biggest Tory fox. Labour returned to power at the next GE.
Brown will be embarrassed if - when - he folds, but the papers will praise his statesmanlike decision to consult the people, and the “wisdom of an honest man changing his mind”, blah blah.
And Brown can then kick the promised referendum into the long grass, beyond the next GE. Sighs of relief all round.
54. Peter - we agree! I would welcome the opportunity to tackle the pro-Europeans in open debate, too. I yearn for that opportunity.
Believe it or not, I don’t like having to rely on the tabloids to get a debate going, or to force the government to do what it should do anyway - consult the people.
It would be far better for everyone, for British politics, for Labour and Tories alike, if this poisonous issue was thrashed out once and for all in a proper way. We need to let some air and light in. Continually trying to smuggle through massive changes, as we are doing now, is making people despise politics and politicians in general.
Once we’ve had the vote - whoever wins - we can all move on. That’s how democracy should be. I for one will shut up on the subject, even if we lose. I’ll have had my day in court.
42. There is of course a difference between trying to wriggle out of a pledge already given, which Brown would apparently like to, and giving a new commitment to hold one, which presumably The Sun / Murdoch would like Cameron to do. One involves a potential breach of trust, the other doesn’t.
It would be interesting to see what The Sun’s attitude would be if Cameron simply said that “the treaty is unacceptable and that we will vote against it”. I suspect they wouldn’t be happy, because while they are anti-EU, they’re more anti-politician and a referendum allows them to cut out the political class and influence policy directly.
I’m instinctively against referenda: we elect a parliament to take decisions for us and to bypass that is to effectively say that the parliament isn’t competant to do so. The only exceptions are when the parliament isn’t competant so to do, and a general election won’t sort it out because the system itself has fallen into disrepute; or to validate the setting up of a new system. The party system doesn’t help if all sides are agreed, but when the issues get big enough the whips have less effect anyway.
DC was in Hull yesterday - 25 days after the floods came. Local press was thus suitably sniffy. His visit generated three lines on page 12 in the Hull Daily Mail. But then there is not much Conservative vote to shore up in Hull. Funnily enough I saw David Davis in WH Smiths in Hull yesterday (now I know why he was in Hull). Very nearly asked him a question about the leadership but then he doesn’t know me from Adam. Regret it today though, like the time I didn’t get Richard Whiteley’s autograph (for my mum!)when I saw him in Leeds a short while before he died.
61 Yes, I feel exactly the same, Sean. I should add that I don’t regard you as a propagandist a la Murdoch and find your so-called rants perfectly coherent, even if I disagee with the substance.
In fact, the quality of EU debate is generally far higher here than you would find in the press, even the ‘quality’ press. I’ve been impressed the arguments of some here - yourself and Yokel in particular - to the point of reflecting whether my own views need a re-view.
That’s what it should be all about. If a proper debate is followed by a no vote, I’ll happily roll up my map of Europe, take down my Jacques Delors poster and shut up for the duration.
Let’s have a debate, followed by a vote. Winner takes all.
I thought I’d hold back and wait for you to get to IDS! Actually I can’t see Cameron being threatened though I’m sure David Davis wouldn’t have seen his Party in this sorry state if he’d become leader.
Cameron hasn’t improved the Tory ‘brand’ at all. He hasn’t changed it. He’s damaged ‘brand’ Cameron though. I’don’t think going to Rwanda was a particularly bad thing to do but because he was in a hole when he went it just got added to a catalogue of stunts. Not a single elector is any the wiser about Rwanda and the publicity has all been negative. Of course an ‘any Questions’ audience wouldn’t say it was a wrong thing to do but that was the wrong question.
Once a politicians credibility is shot it’s irrecoverable. ( William Hague’s baseball hat). And once they’ve decided you’re a loser it’s all over. Look at IDS.
It’s not entirely Cameron’s fault. He was chosen because he could deliver an articulate speech at a party conference without notes and his opponent couldn’t. That he hadn’t written any political books or pamphlets and had no known political philpsophy was ignored. That this could have been performed by any amateur repertory actor was not taken into account.
After Howard IDS and Hague the Tories had found someone who looked the part. But when you’re looking for a pilot it helps if they can fly. Through sixteen months of smoke and mirrors Hilton and co have managed to disguise from the public an important fact. Cameron hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.
Brown’s poll lead might well go down a little or even disappear. But any Tory who thinks that Cameron can even get close to a hung parliament is dreaming. The poll collapse is a collective Epiphany and ‘I’m pretty sure Cameron’s Conservatives are finished. Sorry guy’s but it’s back to the drawing board. The King really has got no clothes!
Brown, after talking big about consultation and consensus has reverted to the authoritarian and unilaterally scrapped DESO which helps bring in billions through defence sales.
This has not gone down well with the defence industry which employs tens of thousands of people.
And one of the biggest has hit out at this stroke of the pen management style.
The letter is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/07/28/narms228.pdf
64. Blessed concord!
I think another No vote - if that’s what the UK produced - would be good for Europe, too. What kind of politicians think it is OK to defraud the voters, to sneak through changes “we wouldn’t dare put to the people directly” (copyright Hans-Gert Poettering)?
It’s utterly disgraceful. Europe needs to look at itself in the mirror. Every time they get a No vote they just ignore it, or blatantly circumvent it with some kind of chicanery.
Imagine if we did the same at elections. Kept asking the people to vote until they got it right, or just ignored election results and carried on, because we have to do things that “we wouldn’t dare put to the people directly”.
This is not democracy. It is shameful. The EU needs to be told: No No No. Think Again. And no deceit this time.
67 “No, Mr. Speaker, No, No, No”
62 To an extent Representative Parliaments came about because of poor communications as Parliaments couldn’t operate effectively if MPs had to consult with their constituents. That is no longer the case - and IMO if a treaty or Act has constitutional implications, as for devolution and in case of much of the enabling law drawn up in European Treaties, then referenda are a preferred method of gaining the legitimate consent of the electorate.
The Government promised a referendum and should deliver but as the temporary nature of the one off payment to OAPs for council prior to last election tax shows (to counter a Tory proposal for a permanent OAP discount) Brown will do anything to win tactically; whether he considers it binding afterwards is another matter.
62 Yes David, I am on the whole against referendums, but make an exception where fundamental constitutional matters are at issue.
Also, as you will have noted, I am against Latin plurals, though that is something I had better not go into here and now. Much better to refer it to Augustus Carp, who I believe chairs the Pedantry Panel, an ad hoc advisory group to PB’s Disciplinary Committee.
65 - Labour’s majority isn’t so much in the hands of the tory party it is in the hands of lib dems as, up to now (for some reason), many lib dem voters seem to be giving Brown the benefit of the doubt. It will need the gloss to wear off and a concerted attack on Brown’s past (and present) mistakes for this to be reversed. This is why Brown must go to the country now, not in six months time, now. He will lose those voters in the coming years as they see just how illiberal Brown is and as Blair was. These voters have switched once and are much more likely to switch again.
Cameron’s position is in the hands of lib dems as much as it is in anyone’s therefore. The danger is that, if the opposition is divided and those Brown switchers aren’t clawed back, that we end up with a virtual one party state. To avoid this, those voters must be persuaded once again to vote lib dem.
The Crosby thesis holds true in this respect, a hung parliament relies on labour doing badly. It’s a schoolboy error to think that incumbency is enough to ensure that lib dem’s progress in individual constituencies, for progress to take place labour votes need to be siphoned off around the country, even in constituencies where they are a distant third place. Only then is there a chance of a hung parliament and the option of power.
64. Hello Peter. Isn’t the problem that a referendum won’t be ‘winner takes all’, it will be ‘winner gets the bragging rights for a few years’? I know your comment was partly tongue-in-cheek, but also partly not.
A referendum will settle the question on this constitution, but not on where to go next. I used to be strongly pro-EU; I’ve tempered that now as I’ve become increasingly frustrated by the EU’s desire to build greater monuments to itself ahead of the need to sort out the existing problems.
The EU debate is fundamentally unresolvable while the EU itself is in flux and while some in the UK wish to have some involvement in it. As most of the population wish to have some involvement (appreciating the single market, for example), and plenty in the EU wish to keep the drive to ever closer union going, the debate will go on. A referendum will put down a marker and be a factor in determining policy, but won’t settle things by any means: the 1975 referendum didn’t stop Labour pledging withdrawal in 1983.
I do agree with you that the debate on here on the EU is (as ever) of a good standard - probably much higher than it would be in the press if a referendum were to be granted.
67 “Blessed concord!”
Yes, OK. That’s great. Now can we move on…puhlease!
[Btw…shouldn’t it be ‘concorde’?
]
Mike - Murdoch did not seriously want Hague. He’d been told to start getting rough with Cameron and unsettling him to pressure him into backing down on the EU Constitution. Hague is seen as negotiable by the EU. Remember his ‘keep the £ for one Parliament’. It meant get rid of the £. He’d be Brussels’ pick out of current Conservatives, as Ken Clarke would obviously not be able to get there.
As a leader Hague is not right. He cannot see the wood for the trees, although he’s a great debater and a very good and interesting writer.
The EU thought Cameron would be malleable - literally the next Blair, which is why he featured so positively in media narratives. The change in Cameron’s media coincided precisely with the moment that Cameron’s resistane to the Constitution looked more than token.
Cameron is still early days. He does have seriousness of purpose, but needs to show that he understands power as well as presentation. I wonder who you’ve singled out.
72 It wasn’t tongue in cheek, David. I acknowledge the many practical difficulties in formulating a referendum question which would be meaningful and give a durable result, but it is surely better to have one than leave a large segment of the population - possibly a majority - deeply unhappy about the Country’s direction.
And I was deadly serious about Latin plurals!
70. I reserve the right to flit between word endings and request referral to the pbc inconsistency committee instead (if it can ever get its membership sorted out).
Labour has selected Councillor Bassam Mahfouz for Ealing Central and Acton (a very close 3 way marginal according to notionals).
Meanwhile according to a piece on LabHome Nottingham South CLP GC have agreed to get an AWS, but they should wait for the NEC sub-committee to meet now…their selection is dragging so long that if there’s a snap election they won’t probably have time (if it’s October, they certainly have time) to finish the process alone. That can generate a question: if there’s a snap election and the NEC should draw up the shortlist for NS, would they shortlist Christine Shawcroft or not?
Sean@67:
‘Imagine if we did the same at elections. Kept asking the people to vote until they got it right, or just ignored election results and carried on, because we have to do things that “we wouldn’t dare put to the people directly”.’
Here’s the problem, and I’m wondering what you think should be done about it (apart from not having got into it in the first place); I’m not sure myself, but I just thought I’d ask:
If they put this thing to a referendum of the people of Europe, they could get it to pass. The difficulty is putting it to a referendum simultaneously in every single country in the union. If any significant decision about how Britain got government had to be agreed by every single county, nothing would every get decided.
Now, this would be a problem whatever direction the EU wanted to take; Even if they decided to change the EU organization to return power to the member states, or to reorientate it around free-market economics and ditch anything to do with the old Social Market, and if these ideas were wildly popular throughout the EU, there would still be an electorate in some country in the EU that, if asked in a referendum, would either disagree at the moment when they were asked or would want to give their individual right-wing, left-wing or centrist government a kicking. Even if they decided to give up the whole enterprise and disband, they’d need some kind of treaty revision which would have to be agreed by all the member states.
Unfortunately the only way for the EU to reform itself right now is to get the member states to agree on whatever they can, and if member states absolutely insist on having referendums about everything, keep on trying until they all somehow manage to agree to the same decision at the same time.
Paul. There are those who support the Conservatives those who support Labour and then those who want to stop the Conservatives and those who want to stop Labour. The evidence is that those who want to stop the Conservatives are a much bigger grouping than those who want to stop Labour (Andrew Cooper on radio this morning). For that reason I doubt the Lib dems will lose many seats. Indeed if Cameron carries on as he is the desire to keep him out may be so great that the Libs actually make gains.
I just read online the Parris, Moore (never permeated my consciousness before but seems to be well written) and Oborne articles about the conservatives. The first two are good pictures of the tory situation at the moment, the last one has gaps of logic that you could drive a bus through. He quotes the figures which show exactly what I said about the ball being in the lib dems court and then completely ignores that equation. Still it’s in the ‘Hate Mail’ so don’t look for logic there.
Moore’s phrase about ‘Brown being the new black’ was clever and points out how PR and spin driven the Brown party is, even more so than the latter end of Blair’s government sans Campbell. Whoever Brown has as his spinmeister and PR man he’s doing a good job, it’s time to get on his case and out him I feel. I remember reading the name before, who is he?
75. I was just thinking about this - what would happen if and when the UK had a referendum, and it was presumably lost to a No vote.
The government would have to go back to Brussels and ask for yet another renegotiation of the Constitution. Presumably this would annoy our partners no end but that’s no bad thing.
France and Holland have already done it, after all.
But it is fascinating to speculate. The UK government, with the people on its back, would have to get a Treaty which genuinely handed over no further powers to Europe, or indeed repatriated some - finally. We would have to opt out of lots of stuff. Maybe the CFP and CAP would be up for grabs. Who knows.
In the face of this, Brussels would either back down and go for a genuinely tiny Treaty, with just a couple of amendments like fewer Commissioners etc. OR Britain’s relationship would have to be put on a somewhat different footing, allowing the others to forge ahead as they see fit.
It would be a political watershed. You could argue that it would be a mess, but it’s a mess that is going to happen anyway soon.
At some point in the next few years the EU is going to ask for powers - direct taxation from Brussels, “replacing” or “combining” our UN Council seat, directly elected president - that even Ken Clarke would have to concede needed a referendum.
That referendum will be lost. So this watershed is heading our way whatever we do. Might as well face it now.
79 - For lib dems the idea of ‘not losing many seats’ isn’t enough, it’s a retrograde step (obviously!) Given what you say the desire to keep Brown out has yet to permeate through (it takes time, as Cameron has found) but it will come. All it needs is Brown, a decent lib dem campaign and a year or so.
Brown knows that he won’t be able to reduce the tory vote beyond Howard’s paltry efforts, he also knows that he relies on lib dem votes, as shown by his polling. Is he arrogant enough to think that he ‘owns’ them? The way he is dismissive of lib dem politicians suggests Brown *is* that arrogant and, unlike earlier last week, when I backed a 2007 election, I laid this off later as I believe that Brown’s arrogance on this matter will trump expediency.
81 Technically they already are combining the UN seat. If I understand correctly the EU rep can speak from the British chair when there is a “common” European position
80. timesonline presumably? or telegraph?
This is crazy speculation - I’m not very enthusiastic about Cameron any longer but honestly there is no alternative. The Tories would look absolutely ludicrous if they ditched him and I can’t believe even they would be that mad.
73
The English spelling is CONCORD we put the E on to please the French, its the name of the late aircraft.
81 SeanT et al - re Edmund in Tokyo
See what I mean about the quality of debate here.
77 Thanks for previous thread. Picked you up on that too.
BTW Anyone who’s looking for a great value bet see 30&40 previous thread I think
88. Punter Plaid Cymru are available to sell GE seats at 2.5 not to buy. The buy price is 7.0
75 Sean, Instead of its petty sniping at Cameron, why isn’t the Mail majoring on demanding a European referendum. A few weeks ago, I thought you were bonkers in even daring to suggest that this newspaper might support Brown in the next GE, but with every passing day this appears more likely - just what is going on there?
Even the dreadful Express must be loading up on its readership as the last bastion for disgruntled Tories.
75: “…OR Britain’s relationship would have to be put on a somewhat different footing, allowing the others to forge ahead as they see fit.”
…which would promptly be vetoed by the people of Luxemburg, Belgium or whatever other country wanted to use a referendum to kick their government at the time.
The only reliable way of getting all these countries to agree is if they’re represented by their governments. If everyone needs a referendum, you can’t reform the EU, except by trying over and over and over and hoping everything aligns in the right direction at the same time. That’s true whether you’re trying to reform the EU in an integrationist direction or whether you’re trying to repatriate powers to the nation states.
83. It’s hard to get to the bottom of this. Some people, europhiles, are saying the EU Foreign Minister will simply be asked to give the EU position to the UN, when it is agreed by all. That will be in addition to the French and British viewpoints. That’s a big change in itself.
But some eurosceptics are saying what you are saying. That in effect the EU Foreign Minister will replace the British ambassador at the UN, whenever a common policy is agreed (which will be nearly all the time).
If this is true it is revolutionary, Britain’s seat on the UN Security Council will be practically ornamental. The common position will be thrashed out in Brussels, and the man from Brussels will speak at the UN. The UK alone will be sidelined.
How on earth does Brown think that is acceptable without a referendum?
But, as I say, we need more clarity. Who is right?
78. I agree. The EU is a in a mess on this. But it’s a mess of its own making.
They’ve gone so far down the road of integration without consulting the people, especially in the UK, any referendum is almost certain to be lost somewhere. But that doesn’t mean referenda are wrong. It means the EU should stop and think again about what it does, and what it wants to be, and whether the people concur.
The fact that the EU is a one way street - towards ever closer union, is another reason for referendums. They are the only way of exerting a braking pressure on the momentum. It would be different is the EU was a genuine and flexible democracy able to respond to public opinion by going in different ways.
But it ain’t. At the top it is a one-party state whose sole objective is accruing more power to Brussels.
For instance: a eurosceptic, by definition, is not allowed to be a Commissione. A commissioner has to have, in law, a “European vocation” - i.e. be passionately pro-European. This is itself a scandal, of course. It means three quarters of the British people could never be a member of their own government - the EU Commission. Because three quarters of Brits are eurosceptic.
Sorry, that should have been addressed to Sean at 81, not 75.
88. Amazing. Re-paste: “30 That is a great bet, but I prefer traditional bookies. They will hold their current three seats very well. Adam Price and Williams are safe. Maybe Maybe the only one under threat thanks to Labour voting Bangor moving into the new Arfon is Elfyn Lloyd, but then only if you are having a good time and only if Betty Williams stands there, as she surely will than fight pointlessly in the new Aberconwy. After that is is knife edge 50/50 fights in Ynys Mon V Labour and Ceredigion V Lib Dems. On those odds worth a punt they’d get at least one of those seats I would say
by Punter July 27th, 2007 at 9:33 pm”
*89* rather
Apologies in advance for my rant!!!
The simple truth is that Conservative Chancellors whether in the 1970’s or 1980’s or 1990’s have been at the helm during some of the worst economic crises we’ve experienced. During the 1970’s with repeated industrial unrest (three day weeks, major national strikes) it was the Conservatives in charge.
There was an ideological shift once the monetarists had captured the conservative party and 1979 saw them in power - albeit with a small, but working majority. But even then there were many within the cabinet who did not reflect the Joseph/Thatcher philosophy (e.g. Peter Walker). As it became clear between 1979 and 1982 just what damage was being done to the UK economy by this project Margaret Thatcher’s popularity waned substantially, with Howe a very unpopular Chancellor, and had the Labour party not been riven by ideological struggles of its own, the Conservatives’ deep unpopularity could have been their undoing.
As history shows, the Conservatives were re-elected on a wave of nationalism following the Falklands but the divisions between the Conservatives and a generation of young people widened. Virtually no-one under 25 in the early 1980’s I knew considered them with anything but contempt - those that liked them kept very quiet. At first, this didn’t matter but it became more and more a problem for the Conservatives as a generation of political recruits turned away from them preferring single-issue politics or one of the other parties. Without this core group of young people the tories no longer reflected people’s aspirations and the distance between them and the middle-ground needed to ensure electoral victory widened.
By the early 1990’s this gap was stark. The Conservatives has previously been able to portray themselves as dynamic and the saviours of the British economy from the industrial wreckers of the 1970’s. But twenty years on from then and people’s focus was not on the mythology of the 1970’s rather it was the practical problems of raising a family in post Lawson-boom England. John Major appeared a decent enough man and people elected honest John, but it was clear as time progressed that the various factions within the Conservatives were uncontrollable, with Major becoming ultimately a hostage to the Northern Irish Unionists (a group whose naked prejudice at the time never played well with most people’s innate sense of fair play).
Throughout the 1980’s the Tories had played the FUD card - whether the economy or defence, However, it just wore thin. The collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc meant defence was no longer and issue in most people’s minds, the promised tax breaks had never been delivered (it costs a lot of money to keep 4 millions idle on dole) and a look at taxation as a measure of GDP shows paper-thin differences between the political parties, and Black Wednesday finally nailed the lie that the Conservatives had some magical ability to manage the economy.
Having ignored the needs of a generation whilst picking-off and alienating every single-issue pressure group from gay-rights to Greenham-women, the Conservatives found themselves unelectable in Scotland and Wales, without a political base in most industrial or cosmopolitan areas, and untrusted on health, education, and the economy - all issues central to most peoples’ needs.
Opposition parties rarely win elections - governments lose them. All Labour had to do by the early 1990’s was convince the electorate that they could walk and talk at the same time and it was in the bag - the FUD had failed, and the Conservatives represented only a rump around the Home Counties. Being the Surrey Nationalists was not enough to form a majority government.
The problem for the Conservatives is to transform themselves from the Surrey Nationalists into a political party representative of and representing the values and aspirations of a large enough cross-section of people to make themselves viable again. To pose the question in terms of whether personality x is right or wrong is to miss the central point - political parties are built from the grass roots up, parties which cannot attract young people will atrophy and die.
Step forward David Davis please!
78- Edmund- good post- how democratic would it be if supposing all Britain’s 40 million voting population voted unanimously for the treaty, only for it to be jettisoned because it was rejected by a majority of 1 vote in Poland. Our fate is delivered by another countries votes, but the referendum in that country is dominated by the unpopularity of the government.
seanT is opposed to Europe full stop. His call for a referendum is not about democracy, it is because he knows that a referendum in the UK is likely to deliver a non vote, and fatally damage the government. A double whammy.
Similarly seanT became pbCOM’s leading critic on the Iraq war. Not for the moral reasons he continuously cited to us (i.e like the democratic ones now) but because it was an avenue to vent his hatred of this government.
Rightwingers who supported the war, then u turned. Yeh right!! Those who supported the war at the outset were warmongering cowards- they supported the use of a massive, criminal bombing campaign by the world’s most developed country against the infrastructure and peoples of a 3rd world state. And then they have the cheek to cite morality as they volte face. These people have no integrity at all.
SeanT: “They’ve gone so far down the road of integration without consulting the people, especially in the UK, any referendum is almost certain to be lost somewhere. But that doesn’t mean referenda are wrong. It means the EU should stop and think again about what it does, and what it wants to be, and whether the people concur.”
That analysis would make sense if the countries that rejected the last treaty had done so because it was too integrationist. But they didn’t. The French voters rejected it because they thought it was too “Anglo-Saxon”. (And because they were annoyed at their government.)
Face it, if any reform needs a referendum in every member state, nothing will ever get reformed - including things you think need reforming.
Sorry, posting too fast (and too much) today. Should have said “Anglo-American”, “neo-liberal” or something.
91. So what. Give it up. By your argument we should never have referendums, and government should decide everything, even if Brussels wants to replace the Queen with an enormous nine hundred foot high animatronic fibreglass model of Helmut Kohl.
In the end you have to accept democracy is messy and unpredictable. Referendums are messy and unpredictable. But we have referendums on important constitutional matters cause that’s what democracy is all about. The polticians’ job is to sort out the mess afterwards.
Hey. Maybe we should just have government by diktat. Enabling laws. You know. Think they tried it somewhere in Europe already.
97. Simply wrong.
96- Herbert Proper- this is not a rant. This is one of the most coherent and well formulated posts I have ever read on pbCOM. Well done.
97. And boring.
91. So what. Give it up. By your argument we should never have referendums, and government should decide everything, even if Brussels wants to replace the Queen with an enormous nine hundred foot high animatronic fibreglass model of Helmut Kohl.
Hey! that would make the Old Royal Command performance interesting, getting that into the Royal Box, would present a few problems, still better than seeing Ben Elton snivelling around the Royals, YUK!
seanT- I think like many people once you say something you believe it. Propagandists often believe their own propaganda. We saw it with Blair, and why the guy came across as so convincing. So you probably do honestly believe that I am “simply wrong”. But I am not.
47,50 & 81
The deceit of the EU constitution / treaty gets worse by the day.
The actual document is now available but only in French,an English version will only be available next month long after the commons has finished for the summer.
MP’s will return to the commons just 10 days before Brown signs a final treaty on 18 October ensuring debate and discussion on the document is minimal.
96 First past the post can lead one to suppose a party’s support is negligible in a particular region, when in fact it is considerable. The Conservatives, for example, regularly poll 30% of the vote across the North of England, as well as large votes in most of the main urban areas (some of which now have Conservative councils).
There are relatively few parts of the country (the Central Belt of Scotland, the Welsh Valleys, urban County Durham, South Yorkshire, and some very poor urban areas) where the Conservatives really are unelectable.
“That analysis would make sense if the countries that rejected the last treaty had done so because it was too integrationist. But they didn’t. The French voters rejected it because they thought it was too “Anglo-Saxon”.”
The two points don’t conflict. They rejected it both because it was too integrationist, and (in their eyes) too Anglo Saxon.
Paul. As ever your posts are guided by a visceral hatred of Brown. So anyone who praises an opponent is always ‘logical intelligent well written’ or whatever. And those that criticize his enemies are ‘illogical missing the point’ etc. That’s all fair enough even if as many people skip your rants these days as skip mine.
One thing you might find interesting though if you’d looked through Cambells book. Blair didn’t just appear out of the ether. When he became leader he had been honing his political philosophy with Brown and others for at least eleven years. Brown to date for something like thirty. Cameron has no philosophy and never has had. So call Brown anything you like but to suggest he’s doing well now ‘because he’s the new black’ is plain daft.
100: I’m not suggesting government by diktat. I’m suggesting government by parliamentary democracy.
Seems to me to be the only realistic way forward in this case, but I’d love to hear another one, apart from “it’s the politician’s jobs to sort out the mess”.
BTW, I love the animatronic fibreglass model of Helmut Kohl idea, but I’m not convinced they’d be able to get it through the House Of Lords.
108 It’s been noted that Beckett and Cousins should kiss the Boundary commission, but what Labour MPs including their neighbours should be upset even if the Seats remain notionally Labour
105.
Tyson, darling, you always post these angry and agonised little diatribes when you feel uncomfortable. And, like all lefties, you feel deeply uncomfortable when you know, in your heart of hearts, that you are in the wrong. Inhabiting the moral low ground.
You may have opposed the Iraq War, but the Labour party - not just Blair - took us into that war, on a lie. And it has killed half a million. You hate admitting this, though you known it to be true. Therefore, anyone who points this out gets one of your sad, flailing, wino-in-a-bus-stop air-punches.
Same for the EU Treaty. You know it is a fraud, an attempt to deceive the people. You also know your government is blatantly trying to renege on a manifesto promise to offer a referendum. This embarrasses you, deep down, but rather than admit it you get all blowsy and hysterical at people who point it out.
I think the problem is technically known as cognitive dissonance. Go get some fresh air. Get someone to wheel you into the sun.
107- sean fear- but the Tories appear unelectable in national elections. That is Herbert’s point. It doesn’t really matter how many councillors you get. Look at Ealing- Tory council, Tory blitzes campaign, and still treading water.
That is why many senior Tories now are worried- they are beginning to believe that Labour slipped in the polls because Blair was unpopular, not because Labour was unpopular per se. Now Blair has gone, normal service resumes, and there is sod all Cameron can do about it.
110. My final post on the EU!
I take yr point that it isn’t easy, but I think you simply aren’t trying hard enough. By your logic Britain could be absorbed into a Federal Superstate (we’re nearly there already) without ever consulting the people, because it is “just too messy to use referendums”.
This is absurd, and you must know it.
I like the argument the Labour party used before granting Devolution, in a referendum, to the Scots. I think John Smith said it “was the settled will of the Scottish people” that they wanted more self-government, therefore he was minded to grant them that, after a vote.
Perfectly sensible. And morally right. I didn’t agree with Devolution but I think he was morally right, it was indeed the will of the Scottish people, as the plebiscite showed. They may not have voted for the SNP overall, but they did want more autonomy.
I think it is the settled will of the British people, expressed in poll after poll, that integration with Europe has gone quite far enough. We do not wish to be absorbed any further, in fact we’d like some powers back.
This “settled will of the people” should be tested in a referendum on the Constitution. And when that referendum gets a No vote, as it will, the government will have to stop handing over power to Brussels, and opt out of any further integration.
Simple.
Now I’m off for a walk. The sun is out! Hooray!
I’ve got a horrible feeling that “Mr Tory X” is George Osborne!! I think you might have hitched your wagon to the wrong horse this time Mike! Osborne was responsible for ‘Heir to Blair’. I think people are so relieved that Blair has gone that one of Cameron’s biggest problems is that he reminds voters of him.
20. Test you state that Mike has “declared a financial interest in a contest”. He has said he would welcome a contest for the betting opportunities this would afford, which isn’t quite the same thing. My guess is that Mike has already backed his dark horse and good luck to him. We will have to wait and see who it is.
I will suggest Mike’s dark horse is one of two priced up runners. Firstly, Teresa May because he pointedly refers to “that person” Labour fear most rather than “he” in his article. If it is a woman she would seem to be the most obvious. Secondly, Michael Gove because of his witheringly powerful intellect, oratory and debating skills. But he has a better face for radio than TV.
but the Tories appear unelectable in national elections.
In bye elections. One thing which is clear from the experience of the last Parliament is that byes have limited electoral significance outside the seat in which they were fought. You cannot extrapolate from them and assume, for instance, that because the Conservatives failed in Southall, they’ll fail in Central and Acton.
Edmund - absolutely right.
The pros and cons of referenda can be debated until everyone is blue in the face (if they aren’t already), but I wonder if a referendum is really a practical way for people like you - SeanT - to get what you want. I don’t believe a no vote from the UK will produce the watershed you talk about in Brussels. Much as this may be desirable. It will cause a brief crisis, just like there was a short crisis