Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

The Conservative Party Leadership Election - 2005 Widescreen Edition

Page: (1)2 3 4

Our Lady Has Left the Building

14:26 / 27.09.05

So, Michael Howards attempts to change the rules on who decides the party leader have failed which means that it's not the choice of the people who voted for William Hague but the people who chose Iain Duncan-Smith.

There's a rundown of the likely candidates here but with the kind of people Tory activists are a small pine tree would be in with a chance just so long as it were anti-Europe.

Ken Clarke might be popular with the public at large but he's old, has remarkably unhealthy habits (even if they haven't affected his health as yet) and has a fantastically evil day job selling cigarettes to children in third world countries. David Davis is supposedly the candidate most popular with Tories but still suffers from the "who he?" factor with the public at large, much like Willy and Iain.

Does anyone have what it takes to lead both the Conservative Party and the country?

15:13 / 27.09.05

I'm split her, as i am in many things, in finding it hilarious and rage inducing.

On the one hand it is quite amusing to see rass roots Tories vote for an early christmas for their turkey of a party but on the other hand, British democracy is suffering from the lack of multiple strong opposition parties.

Regrettable Juvenilia

15:30 / 27.09.05

Having seen Liam Fox on the telly*, he's the one I'm really hoping doesn't become party leader, because his noxious views need to be sidelined as much as possible. Now there's an obvious gag to be made about the post of Tory leader doing just that, but he will be in public eye a lot if he becomes leader, on the TV, in the papers, etc, and that would be a bad thing.

*Essentially Fox is the nudge-nudge wink-wink hard-reactionary candidate on issues such as abortion (he CLEARLY thinks it's evil and would like to start imposing restrictions, and although he can't make this official policy he likes to get his insidious point across) and gay marriage / parental rights (he CLEARLY thinks the gays can't be trusted to raise kids but can't make this official etc). You can tell Fox pines for a US-style political climate in which a Tory party with him as leader could get in and start rolling back progress...

15:47 / 27.09.05

Amusingly enough the majority of Tories thought the rule change was a good idea - only the grass roots failed to achieve the two-thirds required to let the change pass.

Given Teresa May's stand against the rule change on the grounds that it was less democratic, it would seem that the majority of her party either disagrees...

13:26 / 28.09.05

The Tories shot themselves in the foot dramatically when Labour first came to power by purging out the old guard, trying to avoid the sleaze stigma that their opponents had so impressively made stick. But what replaced them? Faceless and spineless (or terrifyingly fascistic) squits.

Traditionally, the Tories always crawled back into power because, after a fit of idealism and voting for another party, the British would turn once more to the party that had, traditionally, run the place for ages. Hiccoughs in this would keep them a little on their toes. But while they were putting madmen and children on their Front Bench, and even when opposition Labour was under Blair's leadership, they had the rug taken out of them as Blair steered his trusties into the Tory political territory that he still dominates. This has split Conservative voters and politicians-- they are no longer a big comfy blob with fringes, but are ONLY the fringes, only the liberals or the isolationists.

The fact that the Tory leadership contest is now between the old guard, a decade closer to retirement (or even beyond it) or young and charismatic fascists will do little to heal the rifts. But then again, either way, it will provide some opposition at last. Just distasteful or irrelevent opposition.

14:25 / 01.10.05

If the MPs have any sense, they'll vote tactically to ensure that whichever candidate they most want to win (or at least have a chance of being made leader) gets put forward to the grass roots, along with a complete no-hoper who will get rejected. That's the only way they can ensure than another IDS doesn't get picked.

Ken Clarke doesn't stand a chance either way though. If there's one thing I've learnt from my experiences within the party it's that the grass roots are fanatically anti-Europe, and not necessarily for any good reason. There's no doubt as to his political credentials - not many MPs can claim to have held such a variety of cabinet positions, and there are few in the Commons who can match his sheer experience - but unfortunately he is at odds with the Party on an issue which most people don't care about but the grass roots do.

My money is on a final confrontation between Davis and either Fox or Clarke (much as I hate to say this, being someone who believes we should more young people in politics, Cameron is too inexperienced to be Leader of the Opposition at the moment). Davis will probably come out on top, as he's not too extreme in either direction, although I think Fox will do well if he gets to the final ballot because a lot of the grass roots will see him as someone who shares their strong views.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

07:58 / 02.10.05

I think Cameron is only a few years younger than Blair was when he became Leader of Labour isn't he? The next election is a long way in the future but based on the Tories since '97 they haven't yet shown much inclination to take on policies to appeal to the Britain that isn't going to the conference this week, so if Cameron came in and surrounded himself with a good Shadow Cabinet by the time of the next Election he might be in with a chance. The problem is whether there are enough decent MPs to help him, but that sort of thing is something that few people outside the party really ever know.

08:53 / 02.10.05

Cameron might only be a few years younger than Blair, but I think he's been an MP for less time than Blair had so he's got less experience in the Commons. It does seem quite strange how the tables have turned and now it's the Tories looking to get back into power after an extended period languishing in opposition.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

10:55 / 04.10.05

Newsnight gave most of their program to it, while conference-goers seem to be going for David Davis (which will hopefully get put off by this pic: It's Double D, DO YOU SEE?!

It's Double D, DO YOU SEE?!

a focus group seemed to prefer Cameron.

11:21 / 04.10.05

I think Cameron might still surprise. If last night’s Newsnight focus group, and the response to his speech at conference today is anything to go by, his rhetoric is some powerful ju-ju. He is young, and relatively inexperienced, but he’s posh enough for the old guard and dynamic enough for the reformers. The smart tactic for him might be to throw his weight behind Davis in exchange for a tasty job in shadow cabinet and bide his time for the next slot (which, lets face it, might not look like a very long wait), but I think he might have some legs for the final straight – particularly if the smearing of DD as lazy, and CC as corrupt, continues.

Tryphena Absent

13:31 / 04.10.05

Oddly enough I live in fear of Davis getting in- I don't think I can quite bear to see the Tories shoot themselves in the foot again, it's verging on the physically painful. the Tories don't need to be reformed simply from within, they need public image and Davis couldn't get that across if he stripped off his knickers and ran down the street screaming for a glass of ginger ale.

Cameron is probably their best bet, with a decent shadow cabinet he'd probably be fine, Davis their worst, Fox the worst for the country so let's pray that he gets booted out of the running quickly. Clarke is a bad idea for the party because he doesn't believe in reform, unfortunately the Tory party isn't going to pull itself up with a leader who doesn't think they should change because the public mostly see a big bucket of lying, sleaze complete with expensive cigars and the occasional double DD bra floating around their political heads at the moment (well done to Davis for promoting that).

Our Lady Has Left the Building

13:40 / 04.10.05

Cameron surrounded by a cabinet of wise people might be a goer, but the second stage which no Tory leader since Thatcher (and I might be wrong, I was a baby when she got in) has done, is to work out Tory policies for the twenty-first century. They need to remember what the Boy Hague said as a young man "Most of you Tories are already dead and we need policies for the still alive!" or words to that effect. The Tories aren't any good at explaining what they are for, just what they are against. If they have to be against Europe they shouldn't say they are against Europe, they explain what they are for. They are in thrall to old white people that don't even have any non-white faces in their gated communities anyway. Being against Europe and against dark-skinned people has kept them out of power for nearly ten years. Do they seriously think that people didn't vote for them because they weren't sure what their immigration policy was?

Tryphena Absent

14:34 / 04.10.05

Dude the Tories are advantaged white people. Even Tories who are "working class" aren't actually working class, they just didn't grow up with quite as much privilege as David Cameron. If they told us what they really believed in than a good proportion of the country simply wouldn't vote for them because they believe in stepping on the poor to get to the top of the hierachy. Worst of all is that most of them don't even understand that they believe that.

14:59 / 04.10.05

Surely in these days of public school Labour PM, of Oxbridge cabinet members, of Notting Hill flats, of dining with Bill Clinton in Conran restaurants, of holidaying in the Caribbean or at some foreign potentate's holiday pad etc, the idea of the Tories being the only privileged people in politics is a little out-of-date? John Major, who literally ran away from the circus, was ousted by an old Fettes boy but unlike the old days, this was Tory being ousted by Labour...

I think that all in all this is one of the reasons why almost ALL politicians these days seem out of touch. There are so few good ol' humans and so many ex-lawyers, so many people who appear privileged enough, whether or not it is the case, that they would not to be able to relate to voters and certainly that voters find it hard to relate to them.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

18:58 / 04.10.05

Hey, I vote Lib Dem, but until the next election I want the best value for money out of the team of mutants that for some reason some of the people in this country voted in second. We haven't had it for eight years. But if last night was anything to go by, the BBC might finally giving up on the sneering about the Tories and starting to treat them as a party that might one day be in government again. God help us all.

Tryphena Absent

21:47 / 04.10.05

the idea of the Tories being the only privileged people in politics is a little out-of-date?

Did anyone suggest that they were?

But I'll respond to that anyway. Conservative politicians originally joined a party that opted for policies furthering privilege for the few by default. I'm not denying that Labour have gone to the dogs (sorry dogs) but bear in mind that quite a few of their backbenchers still entered through the Trade Unions and similar pathways and that some of their social policy is still better than that of the Conservative party. People like John Major appear to believe that everyone should have to fight for money in the way that they did. I have no evidence of that but I can't come up with another logical reason for their will to continue the hardship that they individually experienced. In many ways that kind of position is worse because it's a position that states that hardship is correct and something that a person should encounter. On an impractical and purely ideological level I prefer a Tory or New Labour member who doesn't understand that people have no money and live in difficult circumstances because at least they aren't perpetuating difficulty that they actually understand. Realistically I would of course prefer a world with a completely different political circumstance as I don't actually believe in democracy anyway.

I also don't believe that Politicians actually are out of touch with the majority of people (those who aren't unusually poor or rich), they're perfectly in touch with their own brains. I think they have to play let's pretend because real honesty means extremism on some issues and no votes. Politics is about compromise, that's why it sucks so badly.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

08:19 / 05.10.05

Pimp My Party. Yes, well...

A Clarke/Cameron ticket would be attractive, David Davis is reportedly going to be offering a 'lets be more unpleasant, more right-wing, more xenophobic' vision which would be fine if the party doesn't want to be back in power in the next few Parliaments.

08:28 / 05.10.05

Point taken, Nina-- my own was made under the growing influence of a cold... Forgive me if the below suffers from it too.

From the hardship point of view, my problem with New Labour is that they essentially removed a lot of the politics that were designed to spread the love, as it were. New Labour understood that to gain the votes of the selfish British electorate, they had to appeal in a similar way that the Tories did, and acted accordingly. This is why suddenly fee-paying schools are A-OK, and even favoured by Labour MPs, for example. Essentially, mainstream politics in Britain is increasingly trying to shuffle off the burden of the Welfare State. Low tax=high votes, but has the consequence of low public spending.

You are completely right to say that politicos are in fact in touch with the majority of people. It is a shame that the majority of people are so easily wooed! But regarding my assertion that they are increasingly out-of-touch, this has been shown again and again in the apathy of the electorate, in the declining voter turnouts, and in the general sense that many people do not really feel they are being served by their leaders.

Tryphena Absent

12:07 / 05.10.05

But don't you really mean that people generally have quite extreme views, that they get disappointed by the perceived lack of action that governments take because they would like their own views rather then a compromise or middle ground position to be acted on? If that's so then not only do people have to stop compromising on their vote and going for the best person they think could get in but they have to stop being scared of parties that are perceived as more extreme.

The problems you are describing are not with Politicians, they're problems with our entire system of government. Apathy, declining turnouts, the sense that the government aren't serving you all arise from the compromises that Parties make to get elected, that they have to make when confronted with actual systems when they're in power and that people make when they're voting. There's a reason why so many Politicians start to talk about PR when they're asked about political apathy and it's not because they're thick.

Fee-paying schools are A-OK because... well have you thought about how to convert them? You'd have to, you couldn't just shut them because students would have no schools to go to. It would take years and the government would be out after the first term allowing the next party to change it all back again.

12:43 / 05.10.05

I have no problem with the fee-paying schools myself-- it was the Labour turnaround on that subject that I was trying to illustrate, as part of a larger disinclination on that party's part to spread wealth and introduce an egalitarian system of welfare and support.

Regarding the electorate's views, I think that the problem as I see it is more complex than just the inability of the big parties to cater for voters who desire some form of extremism. I think that while there is growing extremism, which usually results in a compromise vote, a squandered vote or no vote at all, there is also a growing and deeper apathy that affects a great deal of the electorate. That is one of the reasons why, alongside PR, more people are thinking about introducing compulsory voting.

I think that if the politicians were perceived to be more than just compromising, soundbite-spouting people then there would be a higher voter turn-out. Perhaps more blame should be placed on the shoulders of the press for constantly pouring the ice-waters of pettiness and pedantry over every little bit of political excitement, but at the moment I do not feel that there are many awe- or even respect-inspiring politicians in Westminster (and do not even begin on Scotland). There are almost no politicians that I can think of today who I feel have relevance or impact either on my life or on the life of any community I know (Anne Begg in Aberdeen and Heseltine in the old days of Liverpool rejuvination are brilliant exceptions).

There is a need to encourage real talent and charisma amongst the politicians, and I think that Labour for one reason and the Conservatives for another do not do that-- Labour because the well-oiled machine that they have become likes yes men more and more (the spineless ones who all blend into one another that George Galloway complained about!), the Tories because, well, who WOULD join that party at the moment apart from a couple of rabid people fitting your earlier descriptions?...

With the two main parties still trying to struggle for the same political territory, none of those matters are going to be addressed anytime soon unless something dramatic happens (Ken and Cameron team-up, for instance, perhaps? Neatly linking back to the original thread subject...).

15:48 / 05.10.05

Yes, the actual topic.

So, David Davis - blown it? The bookies think his deeply shit speech has kinda damaged his chances, anyway. And listening to it on the radio, it certainly sounded like it was going down like a lead balloon. Meandering, rubbish jokes, and some ‘I’m not racist but...’-type blather rather nastily mixed in with the whole bit about Standing Up to terrorism. I know that Tory party members voted for the vaguely ex-military, officer-type guy IDS before, but it'd be quite a different matter to go for this sort of thing from this guy. I'm not convinced that Davis' thuggish appearance really helps him if he's going to keep pushing this 'SAS-trained' tough guy line so much. Lot of old, easily frightened people in the Conservative party. He’s almost creating the need for a posh, officer-type Tory leader, so as to keep someone like scary David Davis in line.

Later in the day, they sounded like they were clapping Liam Fox’s speech just to cheer themselves up. Liam Fox, the cuddly-looking right-wing nutcase. And his speech was even worse.

14:37 / 13.10.05

Today's news seems to imply that Clark is joining Davis, to some extent, on the scrapheap of might-have-beens, along with the voluntarily self-jettisoned Rifkind... And that Fox is closing in on the lead spot. A terrifying thought. The only thing worse would be for John Redwood to be elected leader, in terms of avoiding fascist lunatics. Is this the death, once more, of the Conservative party? And just as they were regaining the public's interest?

Our Lady Has Left the Building

05:47 / 14.10.05

The David Davis camp must be rattled, as I assume it's them that have been leaking left, right and centre over the last few days about how important it is to find out exactly what David Cameron did with drugs back at university. This could seriously damage him if he continues to play dumb over it, but if he did do drugs and the Tories punish him for it it's just another example of how they are detached from current realities and they'll feel it at the next election.

Tryphena Absent

11:57 / 14.10.05

Currently it's looking like a Davis-Cameron race. Simply because Cameron's getting the most pledges now and Davis had a lot to begin with. Liam Fox has a small group voting for him (a block of only 15 MPs who were previously undecided) but ultimately I'd be very surprised if he got the leadership.

08:11 / 15.10.05

I expect Liam fox to surge past Davis after the first round of voting.

This seems to be a historic moment for the Tories, They could reinvent themselves to become relevant and electable or they could lurch to the right and remain out of power.

Tryphena Absent

11:26 / 15.10.05

How many pledges does Fox have at the moment?

20:49 / 15.10.05

Fox and Clarke are running quite close - it remains uncertain which of these tow will fall at the first fence, though my money would be on Ken Clarke falling out of the race first because he has more enemies in the party and at the grass roots.

21:30 / 15.10.05

But sleaze, until we get to the last round, all of the voting is being done by the MPs and noone else. The MPs don’t get to make that final choice, but the opinions of the ordinary party members don’t matter one jot until that stage, and there’s as much calculation going into making sure they get presented with the ‘right’ choice as there is with the MPs getting behind their own personal favourite now. I'd guess that at least some of the stories over the last couple of days that have been talking up Fox’s chances were there to put the frighteners on anyone thinking of backing him in the first round for tactical reasons.

‘Pledges of support’ aren’t support. And maybe I’m overestimating the abilities of professional career politicians to effectively scheme, but I think most of the parliamentary conservative party would surely be able to recognise the danger of presenting the membership with the opportunity to vote for Liam Fox.

21:34 / 15.10.05

(Note: I may be giving the tory MPs way too much credit there, to be able to spot an obvious lunatic when they see one.)

22:11 / 15.10.05

I think you are bedhead - the Tories have, afterall, demonstrated their inability to select an electable leader on numerous occaisions over the last few years......

22:32 / 15.10.05

Yeah, but the *membership* selected IDS, to the utter dismay of the parliamentary party. The MPs then contrived the Howard leadership so as to avoid going getting the membership involved, then they wanted to change the rules so that nothing as thoroughly unpoiltical as IDS could ever happen again. I think those MPs are fully aware that the membership is capable of getting it All Wrong now, and that that’s probably something they would be taking into account when they’re setting up that final round. Is all.

23:10 / 15.10.05

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't William Hague elected under the old system? I'm not saying I disagree that the grass roots of the tory party are more out of touch with reality than the parlimentary party, but neither do I think that the parliamentary party are above shooting themselves in the foot either...

02:38 / 16.10.05

Oh, really, I’m not meaning to suggest that the parliamentary party are above shooting themselves in the foot. And I’m not actually against them shooting themselves in the foot, either. Just that I would hope they’re collectively bright enough to manage to avoid offering the option of Liam Fox to the membership. I don’t think *any* of the other candidates would want to go up against him when the party members are the ones doing the voting, whereas I reckon David Davis would dream of a final run-off against Ken Clarke, say.

And, you’re right of course, Hague was elected under the old system. But haven’t many Tories recently expressed sentiments like ‘right guy, wrong time’ about Hague? He seems to be far more well-thought of than someone who led the party to a wretched defeat should be, and I think that’s because they’re taking into account the weird/unshakable nature of the lead that Labour had at the time.

Also - jeez, it’s a long time ago and I have a terrible memory, but Hague was kinda elected as the first ‘stop Clarke’ candidate, wasn’t he? It was when Clarke and Redwood made their ‘unifying’ pact that there was a big swing to Hague. This is what I’m saying about the pledges of support that we're hearing about in the papers, and why I’d be a bit wary of writing off Clarke’s chances now on the basis of reported pledges - I think it’s possible that, because of the way things have gone for him before, Clarke has been underplaying his chances this time. Too strong a showing too soon, and it kinda creates the need for a ‘stop Clarke’ candidate - that’s just something Tories do, especially to him. There’s been a ‘stop Clarke’ candidate before, and a ‘stop Heseltine’ one before that. IDS started out as the ‘stop Portillo’ candidate and then ended up being the ‘stop Clarke’ solution for the party members when Clarke had the support of a clear majority of MPs. But nobody’s really bothering to concentrate on stopping Clarke right now, he’s not looking like the guy to stop, and if he’s successfully positioned himself between two conspicuously strong-but-increasingly-battlescarred candidates, well, maybe that’s a pretty useful place to be at this stage. Going on the history.

07:23 / 16.10.05

Oh, I agree wit you on the Tory party's tendency to select a leader not according to who would be best equiped to appeal to the electorate or lead the party to victory, but as a measure to prevent their least favourite candidate from winning. I just have a feeling that Liam Fox could well become the 'stop clarke/cameron' figure the right of the party unite behind after the first round of voting... I think Davis is on his way down - he'll get a strong showing in the first round, but won't win subsequent rounds...

pointless & uncalled for

06:20 / 17.10.05

Clarke might be about to fall a very long way, depending on his peers reaction to his involvement with British American Tobacco.

It would seem, according to The Guardian, that fine folk at BAT have secretly been running a cigarette factory in "axis of evil" country North Korea. Any chance that non-executive director Clarke didn't know about it? Didn't think so.

Page: (1)2 3 4