Subscribe via Email
Subscribe via Email
*Announcement on Tuesday 6th December at 3.00pm*
The great Boris-Johnson.com debate on the Conservative leadership is still going strong! The most exhaustive, in depth, dynamic discussion of the battle for the toughest job in politics has now received over 600 comments - the blogosphere has never seen anything like this before!
But it’s not over yet! What do YOU think? The Boris Johnson office is listening! There’s still time to tell us…
Mac’s insight into the leadership race:
There’s a hush in HQ, (for we all know the name),
Of the one who came first in this race.
They were still neck and neck as they came round the bend,
But one of them fell off the pace.
There was lots of good money we bet on these two;
And each trainer was true to his yard.
First one then the other seemed to ease to the front;
Changing odds made the bookies work hard.
The punters were all of a dither;
But it seems now the race has been won,
One fell behind , and could not make lost ground,
And the race is all dusted and done.
We’ve waited so long for this moment;
The counting of votes took an age,
But now that we have a new leader.
A new act will take centre stage.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Well, if not Boris for Leader, then it has to be Charles Clarke.
For one, he is the only one which the punters could pick out in a lineup. Secondly, he has some gravitas and experience without being tainted by it, thirdly, the tories do not need someone who will appeal to the core vote - they need someone who can appeal to the floaters.
Charles Clarke to lead the Conservatives ? Surely far too right wing.
I think almost irrespective of Europe or anything else, it’s vital for the country that we get rid of these ***!*!*!*! in power, before they’ve stolen and wasted what money we have left.
Therefore, I think it may well have to be Ken Clarke.
I think Murk is right. It doesn’t matter what the Conservative core think of the Leader, or the Labour core for that matter, because both will vote for their “side” almost irrespective. It’s that group of floating voters that matters.
Whatever one may think of the various politicians, it is essential for the country that we don’t have another four or five years of this bunch of incompetent ……. well.
Ken Clarke once said, quite correctly, that Labour Governments always run out of money. This is already happening, and when the effects really hit the C2s will desert in droves, despite a no doubt increasingly desperate stream of bribes.
New Liarbour’s approach of drowning people in fabricated dishonest statistics will, eventually , fall apart spectacularly.
We need Ken Clarke and Tony Blair as party leaders. If Ken can discretely sashay over to Labour and Tony gracefully join the Tories then everything is in place and I will vote Tory for the first time ever.
Ken Clarke? Charles Clarke? What about Nicky Clarke, if what you are interested in is appearance. Young, trendy and hirsute. Or Michael Clarke - he is a promising batsman, but has only moderate success this summer: the experience of being jeered at by the whole of England should be excellent preparation for leading the Conservatives. Or Petula Clarke? Perhaps a little too trendy for the Tories.
Nicky Clarke? Well if we’re on to blondes, no better than Boris.
But all that aside, it doesn’t matter who leads us, as long as we form SOME form of opposition for heaven’s sake. Who can disagree with that?
The party has totally turned in on itself, coiled up and is maybe going to slither off like an awkward rattle snake.
..shame Alan Clark, as of the Diaries fame, isn’t around - he would have added to the fun.
In the end it all boils down to Jeffers’s comment above - A GOOD LEADER and contender against the Government. And Simon of course is right too.
I can’t quite pin down who the leader would be - of the front runners probably the Clarke idea settles in my mind the best though the silent strength of Willetts could push through if he is given half a chance…he isn’t known as ‘two brains’ for nothing and I know that his staff think very highly of him - he is just hiding his light under a bushel at the moment.
However - we must risk supporting whoever ends up as King wholeheartedly - whoever he/she(?) is. Let not the Leader ever put anyone off the Conservative Party as a whole - that mustn’t be allowed to happen at all costs!
True, True, and thank you Melissa.
All we need is an individual to personify our beliefs, have the guts to say what he thinks, and have enough about him to stave off the attacks from His Royal Tonyness of Vanity of a Wednesday.
Because that’s all we need. A person to look good and focused and insistent in front of the press. When the voters are watching. THAT slot is what gets shown on prime time.
Remember that image is half the battle. Just happens that image is all Tonyness has….
Anyway, get a shouter and a thinker of a leader and we’re made.
I’m not a Tory voter (just in case you hadn’t guessed!) so I’m reluctant to get too involved. But one thing I did notice: in interviews, Clarke is refreshingly good at giving a straight answer. After decades of deflection, from politicians on all sides, that’s an attractive quality.
He’s being a complete idiot over the tobacco connection. And I’d like to know his reasons for being pro nuclear power, and anti wind farms. But he might well be the one you need right now…
Does the candidate has to be a member of the House of Commons?
There is one man, with solid credentials - as personable and able as Ken Clarke, but younger and fitter and probably with fewer enemies in the party. He’s also enjoyed a more varied career, including running his own government: Chris Patten.
What an idea Simon - I suppose that the Party Chairman doesn’t have to be a member of the Commons…(as in Jeffrey Archer at one point)
Chris Patten is a solid good chap I agree but I haven’t heard much about him recently - when he was the governor of Hong Kong he was making waves and there was talk he would reach higher office, but now things seem to have gone quiet for him
Mark Gamon - I like your fresh input
Even though I’m yet to become old enough to vote, I have to agree with Jeffers - Image is half the battle - just look at the popularity Galloway has found since he had the audacity and determination to face down the American senate.
If a Tory candidate were to do the same with British citizens in Guantanamo Bay, I’m sure they’d find more support amongst the swing voters than any amount of economics. You can just imagine the speech - “They may be held illegally for an indefinite period without charge and unable to hear the evidence against them - But by *deity of choice* they’ll be held in OUR prisons!” People want invigorating speeches rather than political point scoring that merely serves to make Westminster seem even more detached and even pettier. The same for promising to give power to elected MPs rather than spin doctors and other invertebrates.
From a purely ignoble point of view, no leader who is unfortunate enough have glasses, grey or balding hair or anything but the most virtuous of faces is going to be considered as the next Prime Minister - the sad truth is that appearances matter before policy.
Conversation overheard in the pub on Saturday night. “Well, if Ken Clarke becomes leader he’ll put a stop to all this smoking ban nonsense…”
You know, that would almost persuade me to vote Tory.
Well, not really, I’ve been in the Labour PArty since ‘84.
But, pause for thought, isn’t it…?
Totally agree. We need to look good while we take over.
And please, all, do remember, we are only here putting comments on this board because we want the best for our country, and wish to discuss the right direction for the leader of our future.
We want the Conservatives to win the next election, facilitated only by the best most confident, assured and focused leader.
So, yes, thats why we care so much.
This is why the Conference is going to be so good, next month.
It will be a showcase of the latest Tory Talent.
I’m 22 and would love to see others of a similar age getting serious about the Party. So, well done to you, Mike, for being interested.
No doubt when we arrive the press will be wondering who all these shiny new people are!
Mike - aaaargh!! Grey hair is a bad thing now????
That’s really distressing. I mean I know Winston Churchill hung on a bit past his sell-by date (ie into his 80s). But grey hair can start in your 30s. And for most of us it’s a fact of life by 50. That probably rules out half the population of parliament.
Not that it’s my business, but as of now I’m recommending Clarke, purely on the grounds of age.
For crying out load you crazy bunch of Boris addicts! Can’t you see that Clarke, like Howard, is just too old for this job. The Conservative Party is stuck on a loop where the new leaders seem to be as useless as their predecessor!
There is one man fit for this job and that is David Cameron. Give him a chance. Highly educated, young, and ambitious. He can connect with everyone and will give the Tories a new look.
A young gun with some new ammunition. Thats exactly what this party needs!
I can remember in ‘97 when they lost. Major made a lot of fuss, organised a company to get him out of Downing St, etc etc.
Ken just hired a van, loaded it himself and drove down the street, no fuss, no mess, just got on with it.
I’m not a Tory, I’ll never vote for them. But we need to get Labour out of power, so we need a Tory that can get the “centre ground” and not alienate the voters that are needed. Plus, we need someone that CK and the LibDems don’t automatically rule out from doing business with, which means someone like Ken, Boris or that young bloke (Cameron?)
Sorry, but not Clark, please! Apart from his Europe stance (and his backtracking, Paris is well worth a mass…), but if everybody that is not Tory wants Clark, what do the Tory’s vote? I want more than being a scruffy bloke to be party leader, I want someone with concrete ideas, a plan to pull the UK from the social, cultural and economic mess we have at the moment. I want someone that will tell the truth about how to do it, not someone pandering to the last sound bite of the latest news story. I want someone that doesn’t spend his time pandering to each and every minority making everybody un-happy, since you cannot please everybody. If Clark had been opposition leader, only Brown would have been against the Euro; but now Clark said that he made a mistake, good, I could have told him much sooner, but once in the Euro it is hard to get out, in fact according to the EU laws it is hard to get out from anything signed. Sorry for the rant, but I cannot stand this Clark beatification!
For a sensible comment I can only refer you to simons first post and say ditto. Can’t say I agree with his Chris Patten choice though. At the risk of being lampooned from all sides, well, I’d still vote for Boris. Might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb…
You had me at hello honey, Boris for PM!
Murk - hmmmm.
What is it with this ‘everybody’s too old’ thing? I have a feeling there’s a law against it somewhere. Can anyone advise?
Your assessment of David Cameron is a little scary too. He might be good, I don’t know. No experience of office, little or no visibility among the electorate, and a couple of TV soundbites to his name. But he’s ‘highly educated, young, and ambitious’. I can think of a lot of pop stars who answer to that description too…
Chris Patten - Fat Peng - the Blusterer of the East - EU propagandist - two faced plotter? No thanks.
One thing is for sure, Ken Clarke is no Clark Kent able to break the Tories’ fall with an outstretched hand. On the subject of Clark(e)s by the way, it was clear that Old Alan whilst certainly adding to the gaiety of nations equally had something very much of the night about him. Not many UK politicians see fit to mark Adolf Hitler’s birthday with sentimental meditation or indeed to call their dogs after AH’s mistress.
I actually think of a not very good bunch Michael Howard is the best - he actually did doing somethign about crime and he was right about mass immigration in the recent general election. But obviously if he thinks it’s time to go, then one has to respect that.
David Davis appears to me lazy. David Cameron’s elite background must count agaisnt him in the current cut-throat world of class-coloured politics and spin. Rifkind looks like a fox-appeasing bunny.
Personally I think the Tories need to concentrate more on their organisation, their ideology (yes, not a v. Tory concept but every party has one - or several), and their policies.
I would like to see a party that is committed not only to strong leadership, but also referendum democracy. In the modern era there are all sorts of issues which I think a a grown up electorate should decide for themselves: e.g.
abortion law, ethical medecine issues, immigration laws, the overall tax burden.
I think the Tories should reform as a strongly federal party with a new name and different names in the four national regions of the country. Political nomenclature is a tricky business but the left-liberal media establishment have so comprehensively (and quite deliberately - just listen to Fluck and Law id you don’t believe me) rubbished the Tory and Conservative brands that they have to be discarded.
I would suggest that Democratic Party is probably the best choice. You could then have a Democratic Party of the UK as the overall organisation with separate parties e.g. Democratic Party of England, Scottish Democrats, Welsh Democrats, Democratic Party of Northern Ireland to fight elections.
The new party would need to redefine its ideology incorporating:
1. Declaration that it does not seek to preserve privilege, that it is committed to spread of wealth, to democracy and to elimination of poverty.
2. Commitment to consitutional monarchy as basis for government.
3. Committment to devolution for Scotland,Wales and N. Ireland and England (the latter coudl be achived through “dual status” for English MPs who act both as UK MPs and English MPs utilising the same chamber - this would finally resolve the W. Lothian question).
3. Commitment to internationalism and global development - not trading blocs.
4. Commitment to free and fair trading.
5. Commitment to maintaining national independence and opposition to Euro state.
6. Commitment to referendum democracy.
I think if the Tories adopted this approach they would get a lot of positive publicity. They would begin to appeal to new sections of the electorate and probably claw back a lot of teh UKIP vote. The left-liberal slanderers would find it much more difficult to have a go at “the democrats”. Particularly if those democrats were saying on a no. of key issues “let’s ask the people and see what they think”.
Absolutely.
The ideas we already have. The spokesperson, we don’t got! We all know what change we want.
No doubt its clear we should:
1. Introduce the Aboliton of Europe Act 2005
2. Delete the Criminal Justice System and its associated laws and replace it with the correctly named and functionable Justice for the Victims off Crime system whereby we :
(i) re-introduce the death penalty
(ii) create punishments in line with
offences.
So you’ll see that we can cure the woes of crime in this country by adhering to this bananas “Criminal Justice System” aka Justice for Criminals, it does exactly what it says on the tin.
And we’ll turn it all round.
Its SIMPLY a choice of who will voice the changes we need.
I make the score so far:
Ken Clarke 6
David Cameron 1
Non candidates:
Boris Johnson 1
Michael Howard 1
markgamon - hmmmmmmmm!!!
Pop Stars! This is the Tory leadership fella! To get the vote you need someone who is going to stand out! I suppose it’s not really about age but surely those who don’t give too much thought to voting would look at the interesting candidates when it comes to elections. Michael Howard, Kenneth Clark, Malcolm Rifkind…it’s all so continuous. It needs changing! And the Tories need a new style. Twelve years Mark! Twelve flaming years its been! And why? Because none of the leaders stand out to the public. They might to you hard-on Tories, but not the general voters! Come on…Think about it!!!
Well said, Sabriam Murk.
Pamela Anderson for leader, then?
What about a tag team? Two of our finest, Kenneth AND an assistant to give out sharp left hooks and take the flak.
Shared somewhat……in interviews on TV they’d say, “Nah, he said that…” or deflect the praise onto the other and say, “Oh I know, and isn’t he fantastic. I agree.”
That’d be original.
Or……I know!! Anne Widdecombe! She was fabulous. Bring her back.
What’s with the sudden passion for Ken? A man prepared to drop his Euro-enthusiasm like the ash off his cigar. (I don’t mind him having shares or whatever in fags - freedom fighters against health fascism have to risk their lives). I suspect he might find a sudden fondness for rap or garage or outside loo over jazz if required.
So, if you lot aren’t going to use your considerable influence to get Tony elected, how about Angela Merkel instead? We’ve already got one German lady MP Gisele Stuart or whatever her name is, in Birmingham. Since we seem to be stuck with Europe we may as well take advantage of it and give some of their smarter politicians a break. Apart from poor old Mr. Major the last Tory prime minister was a woman. Four blokes since and - errmm - not doing well. As someone who mentions Popper from time to time I shouldn’t say this but the inductive lesson of history is Tory boys don’t win elections any more. You need a lady! I think she’s a scientist as well! No danger of post-modernism. Running both Germany and UK will be a cinch for her.
Re: Lets get Anne Widdecombe - Right you are, Jack.
She is great, and given this new angle I think she has the potential to be a real force in dismantling the Labour.
Which, incidentally, is what we must term them. We, quite simply, in that case, could re-brand ourselves too.
Tag Team idea still is very much a fabulous vision.
Anne W and another. You guys insert as appropriate.
At the risk of sounding like an old cynic I think people tend to vote with their wallets, and until people start to accept that Labour is bungling the economy, they will keep getting elected. Labour could hardly have made a bigger mess of all the other issues - immigration, crime, Iraq, pensions etc.etc. I tend to agree that Tories just have to be patient until the money runs out….
Field made some interesting remarks about devolution. Didn’t the Tories already win a higher share of the election vote in England - but got slaughtered in Wales and Scotland where Old Labour is doling out our cash?
Even hardened labour voters find this government arrogant and deceitful, and as soon as the huddled masses lose confidence in their handling of the economy the wheels may start to fall off very quickly.
Conservative policies weren’t the problem at the election (and Howard didn’t do a bad job either) - the time just wasn’t right. So whichever leader is chosen, the party needs to quickly unite and stick in there as a credible opposition.
I am unfortunately a young Tory (19), and my experience of the party and it’s potential leaders is too limitted for me to speak with authority on it.
However, I would like to highlight one issue that’s on my mind. At the moment, everyone is focussing on who is most likely to win us an election. I can definitely understand this with the ruin that Labour has been bestowing on our country, but this may diminish somewhat if Blair goes (it may not, who am I to say). Nonetheless, it is this desperate struggle purely to get into power, without solid notions (in the public’s eyes) of what we want to do when we get there, which gives our party such a bad name. People think of us as opportunistic and selfish people who will do anything for power, and electing a leader on the basis of who will most likely return us to power is not a good way to go about changing that!
Personally I think we need a full term, probably even two, in which to remind people of what we stand for. To remind them that we’re not just a coalition of Blair-haters (I hope?). As such I would be looking for a long-term leader, someone with integrity and principles. This may be hard to find admittedly, but surely we have someone?? I’ve never understood why age seems to be an issue, in fact in this world climate I would rather support an older candidate who would give Britain a feeling of stability. Everyone knows that we can’t stand up to America and it’s foreign policy, which is what a young leader would represent, and as such an older person who would not be standing up to but rather moderating it would be good. However, since my hope is that we’ll find someone who could potentially last for the next 20 years (with about 6-10 in opposition), an older candidate may not be ideal.
If Blair steps down before the next general election I think it will be of major benefit to us. We would lose to Brown (labour but without the Blair reputation), but he would then be lumbered with the demolished economy and chaotic society, take the blame, and lose next time round. In terms of electability we need a leader who has credibility in 8 years time, and the only way for that to happen is if we choose someone with long-term reliability now, put our support behind him, and then work for the next decade on the party’s image, not the leader’s.
Oh one more thing!
I’d like to take a little moment to speak for the young (or at least my experience of them). Being 19 myself, I am nearly entirely associated with “the young”, and I can say a few things with confidence.
Firstly, everyone hates Tony, I have not met a single person who likes him or his policies, even living at university with many die-hard labour supporters. But, don’t be mistaken into thinking that just because their perception of labour is based on the leader’s image, that they judge all parties this way, it’s not so. Quite the opposite in fact, most don’t even know who the Tory leader is, only that he’s Tory. And that means that he’s a slimy, selfish, probably pompous, rich aristocrat. Since joining the party myself, I’ve encountered masses of bad feeling, even from people I know well, who think that I’ve suddenly become all those things above, plus racist!
This is our biggest obstacle (at least as far as the under-25s are concerned), and a leader will make little difference to it.
JackT you are brilliant. More of the same from more of you, please. Its positivity that’ll rally the troops.
Not English, self-obsessed inward destruction!
Who remembers that typically cringe-worthy, terrible song that was hammered out when they got in, “Things can only get better.”
Oh my goodness.
Words fail to depict the pain and suffering of that memory.
What would WE play?
Why don’t they (all candidates and the negative contributors to this comments board) go on Jerry Springer and let Jerry give his final thought for the day which would be along the lines of:
(imagining Jerry’sone of us)
They (Tony and co) stand for what they think. They attract their appropriate audience.
We need to say what we think, stand to represent it, and worry about our supporters AFTERWARDS.
They come with the territory.
People will identify with our common sense way forward plan.
They’ll put energy into that, not toward this bickering and go-nowhere attitude.
After all, our supporters are the Silent Majority. We need the right person merely to awaken their commitment and add gusto to their suppressions, so we can hear them.
Are you thinking what I’m thinking?
Sabriam Murk - 12 years? Reminds me of how the Labour party felt during the Thatcher years…
Jeffers - the Abolition of EUROPE Act 2005? Are you sure? That’d create an awful lot of unnecessary ocean between here and Russia…
Simon - are you still keeping score? This is fun.
I like the Patten idea, however, I think that the leader should be a member of the house because he plays an important role in debate and PMQ’s and surely he has to be a member to get in there.
I still think Boris should run, but if not I’d go with David Cameron. If Clarke gets it, then the Lib Dems get my vote, what the party needs to do it break with the past and try to regain some appeal, which KC just doesn’t have. All getting KC in is gonna do is alienate more people. Cameron is young and something new, and that is what the party needs.
JackT -
Very interested in your persepctive as a young Tory. Seems to me your analysis rings true.
I think what you say backs up a lot of the points I was making about the need to restructure, rename and redefine the party. You are saying that in effect the Tory “brand” has become so polluted in people’s imagination (and a lot of it is imagination I would say) that however good the leader, they are going to find it difficult to make headway, particularly with the younger voters.
I’m not convinced Lucy has quite absorbed what you are saying and the fact that she advocates Anne Widdecombe - whose jibe about “something of the night” probably cost the Tories ten seats at the General Election - shows it.
RichM -
My point on devolution is that the Tories do need to pick up a few seats in Scotland and Wales (and why not N. Ireland?) if they are (a) to have credibility as a national party of government.
Do people just vote with their wallets? I think it’s a bit more complicated than that but undoubtedly Labour newly discovered (discovered by chance?) economic competence is a big barrier to Tory success. Certainly the Tories need to go where Labour CANNOT follow e.g. flat income tax rate.
Sabriam Murk: Was MarkGamon hmmming at you or I? (what follows had all the paragraphs removed by the preview, I will insert // for paragraphs in case they do not survive posting)
//
Personally, I cannot see the Tories getting elected anytime soon, short of a *big* amount of image changing. The only guy on the radar now for that is Clarke, the others are simply more of the same (Clarke isn’t a great choice). Boris would be my choice if I could pick anyone, PM’s question time would be wonderful!
//
At the moment, the tory and lib dem vote is clustered, whereas the labour vote is distributed, with enough people to win in many seats, but not so many that votes are wasted on someone already elected. Witness that Labour has a 60something majority with the smallest share of the vote of a governing party in living memory.
//
Note that in England, the Tories got more votes than Labour, yet Labour got the majority of the seats… when will electoral reform be addressed by the major parties?
//
……. possibly when they realise that they’re no longer a major party. Or is that a little too cynical?
//
As a not unrelated aside, England is the only country in the UK without it’s own parliament. Why is this not a major issue for the Tories?
//
The parties, including the Tories, should be encouraging participation - this is not about tinkering with insecure postal voting, it is about promoting an interest in politics. Engage with people, most importantly, champion making their vote count…. if a party wants to engage with the public it needs to do so continuously, and not just in the marginal seats. If politicians really deplore falling turnout, recognise that with the current system, most of us have a vote that is not worth much as we live in a safe seat.
//
My recommendation to the Tories: Whoever the leader is, engage with the public, and push for the public vote to actually count (and not via a list based system). Highlight that in 1997, Labour promised action on this, and hold them to account for ignoring the recommendations of their own 1998 committee.
//
Back to the leadership:
Most of the people in the frame are anonymous; unfortunately where are the rising stars *who are known to the public*?
//
I’m interested in politics, but the current runners (or rumours) are just names to me for the most part. David Davies (so good they named him twice), Clarke, Cameron, Rifkind, Liam Fox (didn’t he write for New Scientist), Willets, May.
//
Only one of these I could identify from only a photo (Clarke).
//
I could identify Davies, Rifkind, Fox and May by name, but would not have been able to match them to a photo (okay, given four photos, Theresa May might have been guessed at).
//
If I have this difficulty, I dread to think what the average punter might think.
//
The issue is… where is the known face? Where is the obvious choice? More simply, given certain recent laws such as the restrictions on protest (aimed at one man who is exempt as his protest predates the legislation), house arrest, ID cards etc…. given all this, where is Her Majesty’s Opposition?
//
…… Hmmm, how did that turn into a rant?
Dear Mr Murk,
I didn’t know of your existence. I am not sure who that other fella was humming at..could have been either of us. But what the hell…I gave him a response. Maybe I should just make all my posts with “Sabriam” from now on…lets save any future confusion.
I make the score now:
Ken Clarke 5
David Cameron 2
Non candidates:
Anne Widdecombe 2
Boris Johnson 1 (2?)
Michael Howard 1
Non MP:
Chris Patten (if available) (1?)
I’m surprised that those who want a woman as leader haven’t considered Theresa May. I can remember her attack in the Commons on Stephen Byers when the Tories were calling for his resignation. It was feisty stuff - and she knows how to buy shoes!
Simon - Chris Patten is bringing out a new book soon: that may explain his relative absence recently
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713998555/qid%3D1125959076/026-0222700-1346076
According to a BBC Newsnight poll, Ken Clarke is four times more popular with ordinary voters than David Davis and way ahead of the others:
Clarke 40 percent
Davis 10 percent
Rifkind/Cameron 4 percent each
Liam Fox 3 percent
David Willets 2 percent
All getting very exciting Simon - a bit like Election night all over again.
People are surprising! and how right you were to air the subject more prominently.
There is, however, a sense that there is still a lot to play on all fronts.
Ok, I’ve been trying to assimilate as much information as possible on the candidates, who they are and what they want for the Tory party.
You can count me in for David Cameron. Ken Clarke is not at all what I want… quite the opposite in fact!
Melissa: Have we got to the Tory Last Chance Saloon? There’s a widespread feeling that if the Conservatives don’t get it right this time right this time, they are never going to make it with the electorate, and we are all doomed to long-term rule by dismal, authoritarian, bureaucratic, gung-ho Christian socialist appatchiks.
Not surprising that there is all the extra-party interest in the leadership selection process. It is almost as if the BBC and the media have decided they want Ken Clarke and are co-opting the public (and a majority of us here) in on the campaign.
N.B. Interesting to note that after 50 odd comments we have zero interest here in David Davis. So much for the ‘front runner’!
That’s interesting actually, you’re right. David Davis would work for me, I could support him (not only because he went to my university!), under the (current) election rules I would only have the opportunity to vote in the final two I believe, and since it is likely that Clarke will be one of them, I would vote for either Davis or Cameron, whichever the second candidate is. If it’s anyone other than those two I’d have to rethink it.
The issues he talks about aren’t particularly the ones that I’m interested in, but at least he’s not saying things I disagree with like Clarke.
Yes, Davis or Cameron are ok for me, we need a leader, not a celebrity. Most the people that say they like Clark DO NOT VOTE TORY and will not do so if Clark is elected. One has to get known, give policies, give a sense of what the party is and will be. The young Bliar was an unknown entity at first, but he worked on his image (and no substance). The Tory party has a horrible reputation, but so did labour, so it is possible to turn round. By the way Melissa (or @), do you know in which group the Tory European members of parliament belong to? I am quite afraid of the answer…. since I do know Italian political parties that I would not touch with a barge pole (unless to keep them down in the water).
Sabriam Murk AND Murk…
Sorry guys. Got you muddled up. You’ve got to admit there’s a similarity. Apologies for any confusion.
Hi Vanessa
@ @ your service!
Read here a summary of a talk given by Charles Tannock MEP giving a good idea of Euro MEP thinking:
http://www.cfcconline.org.uk/archives/2004/09/dr_charles_tann.html
- do come back with more specific questions if you wish
LUCY
you have got to ask him something!
Having shared an office with him for about two years I got to know him a little. I am afraid that he was a new MP then and unfortunately I did not see a rosy side to him - alack and alas. I am not, however, convinced that he is the cool cat who not once deigned to say a mere ‘good morning’ and perhaps he was keyed up and concentrating on other things far more important than a secretary who happened to share a room. There seemed to be an invisible tunnel leading to his office with a wall around his desk that was impenetrable and when he made his way to it and/or was at his desk he was oblivious to anyone else at all. What a change when I was in a room next to Michael Howard about 6 years ago: he would poke his head round breezily and say a cheery “hello”! He would also acknowledge me and other staff in the lift and alas I can’t say the same for our aforementioned member.
So Lucy, I would love you to ask him something along the lines of:
“Tony Blair is renowned for his apparent charisma and familiar approach with the public. Are you confident that you enjoy the warm and wholehearted support of all around you? and could this radiate out to the nation as a whole in such a way as to pose a serious threat and challenge to the government?”
Right. Well I have taken in what you say. However I need to keep on the safe side of things.
Plus I would never utter a meaningful word in praise or remote acknowledgement of His Royal Tonyness of Vanity.
I don’t see it as “charisma” nor “familiar approach.”
I am looking forward to the evening, though.
Rather, I may ask DD what he thinks of Tonyness’s insincere, gut-wrenchingly patronising manner.
@ - good to have you back. Your memory of David Davis is a little chilling. Politeness costs nothing, even for important people. Or those that think they’re important.
Melissa: David Davis may just be shy, but a political leader needs people skills. The lack of them was a major problem for IDS. The media have already picked up on this aspect of Davis’s personality - I have seen some coded references to more or less what you have described - “known to be a difficult person to work with” etc.
Vanessa: “we need a leader, not a celebrity. Most (of) the people that say they like Clark(e) DO NOT VOTE TORY and will not do so if Clark(e) is elected.”
Vanessa, the Conservative party is not going to win an election simply with its present support base of elderly people in the south of England.
If the Tories are not willing to try to persuade the people who “DO NOT VOTE TORY” to change their minds, then (in my humble view) they might as well disband the party and all join the Lib-Dems.
As a Lib Dem voter I would be interested in voting Con if they elected Ken as leader.
If on the other hand they reject him, do you think he would be interested in replacing our Charlie?
Simon, I see that my “can’t stand” Clarke rant has made me diminish his name. I do not mean that we do not need new Tory voters, but there are people that will never vote Tory even if the clone of Hitler was the Labour candidate, and a lot of these people are the ones that like Clarke as Tory leader, worrying, no? Since there is no proof that Clarke can get new votes just being Clarke, without any polices, plans, ecc…, why antagonise elderly voters in southern England? Poor things (like my mother), they have had a though time anyway. The Europe problem is important, even if it is not the main point of policy; the referendum has been postponed (or put into the freezer), there is no way to address it, meanwhile, the constitution is not dead as a dodo, the EU is going on as though the French and Dutch did not vote. There are other reasons why Clarke is not my coup of tea (or my cappuccino).
Meliss@, Davis has lost my vote! But on the other hand I knew that there was a heart in Howard!
Vanessa
I feel very humbled by your points - mark and simon thanks etc…
We shouldn’t rule anyone out of the race but snippets of info help form a whole picture
May the best (wo)man win! someone who will really be our best cappuccino
Vanessa - ‘there are people that will never vote Tory even if the clone of Hitler was the Labour candidate’
Doesn’t that work the other way too? - ‘there are people that will never vote Labour even if the clone of Hitler was the Tory candidate’
Perhaps that’s part of our problem.
Nice touch with the Meliss@, by the way. I’m already wondering about Vaness@…
Melissa -
You’ve certainly put the boot in - high heeled or otherwise. Not sure David Davi(e)s will get up after that and if he does he will probably be speaking in a high-pitched voice.
It’s great fun dealing in the gossip of politics of course, but I think this discussion highlights the fact that the Tories are rather adrift. What are the Tories for? It may be that Labour are heading for a big economic crash. But let’s assume for a moment that they aren’t - then what exactly can the Tories offer?
I feel they could offer a lot in a number of areas but I am not sure any of the candidates articulates that very well.
Essentially I think the Tories need to redefine themselves as the party of the family, the real workforce, the “big” middle class. And I think a name change is absolutely essential.
If somebody relatively new (one of the many Davids, for example) is leader then most of the public won’t, initially, know them. And the media and the Conservative MPs who voted for somebody else won’t give him sufficient chance to raise his profile before getting rid of him — William Haig had 4 years, IDS less than 3.
So it has to be somebody already known to the public. Ken Clarke and Tim Yeo and so on are tainted with the failed Major government; voting for them would be seen as a step backwards.
Which means the Conserservatives need somebody who wasn’t part of the Major government but does have a high media profile and is known by the public.
It’s got to be Boris. Nobody else fits.
What is so wrong with the name, “the Conservatives” ??
Look, are we not just pointing to excuses now? Its our name thats the problem, now?
I disagree.
We have to work from the inside out, not the outside in.
What we have to give is worth far more than what we are called.
Field
A name change! Boris has wondered about this too…
ps I am not into the gossip but have merely commented that for all the rhetoric real life in the trenches can be entirely different for MPs - thus it was for said Davis. That was my own minor experience a while ago that has unavoidably coloured my present thinking. However, I am prepared to be challenged on this.
Lucy
I can understand your views.
However a slight change in name could enhance public perception about where the Party is going.
I agree that inside out has to be the best way forwards, but a name change might not be a bad idea. It’s not without precedent, Peel changed from Tory to Conservative back in the 1830s, in an effort to throw off memories and ties with the Peterloo massacre and repressive measures introduced at the beginning of Lord Liverpool’s premiership.
However, I think that in this time of mass media and clearly defined party politics, it would look more like a vote-grabbing exercise than anything else. I think what we (by which I mean the party) need most is an image of stability an consistancy. A name change is definitely not the best way to do that! Above all we must resist the temptation to throw off the next leader if we lose the next election. People need to see that we are at ease with ourselves and comfortable with our party’s form before they can entrust us with running the country. A party which has been through so many leaders so quickly just shows people that we don’t trust our own leaders to do a good job. If their own party doesn’t trust them how on earth can the public?
Also, I think it would be best to have someone who was less well known to the public, as it gives them a chance to show who they are rather than having conclusions drawn about them already.
NB. What do you think satirists would do with the leader of a tory party who is so tied to cigars?
1. On the subject of the name of the Conservative party, “Conservative” should be used more often and “Tory” discouraged.
If you are a die hard right winger and always have been you may not mind being called a Tory; but people who are not yet converted but could be will find it easier to say “I am a Conservative” than “I am a Tory”.
Think of how left wing politicians always prefer to call their opponents the “Tories”
which was the name of the party from circa 1679 to 1832, and now carries implications of being an unthinking reactionary.
The BBC and especially Radio 4, notorious for their tendency to see everything in centre-left terms, usually say “Tory” rather than Conservative, presumably for the same reason.
No one now calls the Liberal Democrats “the Whig party”, which would be the equivalent.
2. On the subject of the Conservative leadership, can anyone ytell me any specific policies that any of the candidates have, beyond vague waffle about “modernising” and “connecting”?
Regards
Evil Tim Lawyer
At some risk of attempting to show ancestors how to suck eggs may I offer the following observations?
We are talking about the leadership of the Conservative party. Now I think that the word Conservative means something. I was reading Roger Scruton’s new book. In there he refers, in discussing Burke, to T. S. Eliot’s essay “Tradition and the individual Talent”.
“..in which tradition is represented as a constantly evolving yet continuous thing, which is remade with every addition to it, and which adapts the past to the present and the present to the past”.
I read this not as being reactionary - the reactionary wishes to go back to the past and live there.
Recently I also quoted Priestley and his abhorrence of ” ..the saddest waste of all, the waste of human beings”. In this piece Priestley saw himself as a socialist in saying this, but feared the regimentation that socialism seemed to require. Perhaps it might be best to see Priestley as a progressive, in the sense that he wanted to ameliorate the waste and suffering that he saw. But perhaps it is also right to see him as a traditionalist in the sense that Scruton aludes to, or indeed as a conservative, since that is what Scruton was getting to.
Popper also has an interesting essay “Towards a rational theory of tradition”. Tradition is where we start, but not uncritically. However criticism is impossible without first understanding a tradition.The radical overthrow of tradition without criticism through understanding is what leads to often disastrous consequences ranging from EU wide laws to gulags. (As I understand it Roger Scruton is not too enamoured of Popper as a philosopher but it seems to me that they are not so far apart in this matter).
Having understood this, in my own humble way, I began to see how importnat it is to have a Conservative party even if I don’t (yet) vote for them. A conservative need not be against progress, where progress is sensible and humane management of change based on a critical appraisal of tradition. Conversely progressives need not fear natural conservatism which appeals to tradition for caution in management of change. Reactionaries and radicals are what we should be wary of. Both want to tear up where we are now, one to go back to a past that is often as illusory as the future the other wants to go forward to.
Well maybe it doesn’t work out that neatly. But I can’t help feeling that Ken C. is perhaps a little too dismissive of tradition in his - now slightly subdued - enthusiasm for the EU. I would be interested to see if any of the others can put forward a concept of conservatism where there is evolution through our traditions to make progress in the amelioration of the many existng evil aspects of society - some that Priestley would still recognise and some new ones.
Vaness@: “there is no proof that Clarke can get new votes just being Clarke”
I don’t know whether polls are proof or not, but the one the BBC have just done suggests that Clarke is an establish brand all ready for sales in the High Streets of middle England.
This is the difference between Clarke and Rifkind (who might need a couple of years) and Cameron (who might need longer), assuming of course that they have it in them in the first place and are given a fair chance by the media (not something that can be guaranteed!).
How much time have the Tories got? One solution might still be the so-called ‘dream ticket’ idea of Clarke plus Cameron (or whoever), with the younger man easing into the job under some measure of protection.
As a 50+ lifelong Conservative (well, since I was old enough to vote)and a Party Member, I get fed up with these leadership elections. It is always the same old same old. We need someone who is going to appeal to the younger voters and get us out of this ‘Blue Rinse Brigade’ timewarp. My first choice would be (obviously) Boris - or what about George Osborne? He’s young, seemingly confident and very nice to look at. On the other hand what about another woman…………………I leave you with that thought
Boris for Tory leader?! Come off it team. Yeah he’s a nice enough fella but can anyone here really see him leading a serious Conservative Party? I think Boris see’s the Tories a bit like a football hooligan would see their own team. He’s obsessed! But after leading (and probably failing) there would be much to say by his colleagues and it would ruin such a sparkling reputation. Stick to the back bench Boris! HAHAHAHA and try and get promoted to the shadow cabinet again!
Jack
It strikes me that you are prodigiously mature for your young age - with quotes of Priestley, T S Eliot etc
On vote grabbing, you are right that any opportunistic short term gain would be a waste of time. How sensible. However, in the long term we should be mindful of cyclical changes in thinking and be open to a new branding and change.
Of course I still think there is at least one potential leader hiding under a bushel at this stage. There is still a lot to play.
>I began to see how important it is to have a Conservative party even if I don’t (yet) vote for them.
really - are you kidding? you that young?
“My river is nothing but a field of gold. My lady is a candle. My chinese friends are all gone”
Does anyone know who wrote this? It is an extract from a poem. Any ideas?
Just to clarify Melissa - me and Jack are different people, in fact very different people I believe!
I’m the young one (19), but a member of the tory party and I did indeed vote for them in my one chance so far this lifetime.
Jack is the one who quoted Priestly and T S Elliot, I’ll leave him to speak for himself on other issues!
“I began to see how important it is to have a Conservative party even if I don’t (yet) vote for them.” is not me of course.
I can change my name if it’s easier! The T annoys me too…
JackT is right! We are very different people! I am a 50 (urmm) plus Labour voter. However I find JackT’s observations rather useful in preventing intellectual complacency and a good deal more stimulating than some from those who might describe themselves as cynics!
Surely 19 is not too young to be acquainted with Priestley or Eliot? I recall presenting a copy of the Four Quartets to a very modern young woman as she started her English GCSE. She seemed to like it.
It’s probably too late but I could renounce the name Jack in favour of something else since I think that JackT was here (on this blog not Earth!) before me.
Jack, JackT et al: My theory is that there are at least three or four of you. How about using your real names? Or is there some reason to hide your identities?
Many apologies for getting my Jacks confused. I really was getting bamboozled
How about Jack T (1) and Jack Senior (2) - it is confusing when we get newcomers here with similar names - we have had a few
All the same I must confess I am very impressed by your intellectual analyses - you both.
May more Jacks come our way - Jack 3 it would have to be
Simon
You are a great example of clarity in these things and you are so right in saying that full names would make things clear as a bell.
We have had a few Simons and never once have I confused the identities I think!
Well Simon, interestingly Jack is in fact my name! I imagine it’s so for Jack too. I came second (to both the blog and earth), which is why I added the T (for my surname). I could change to Charles if you like (second name), I haven’t seen a Charles about that I can remember. But I think in the spirit of common sense it is probably best if I just use my full name!
So from now on, you will see me posted as Jack Target.
.. aka the blogger once known as Jack, is going to appear as Jack Ramsey from now on.
Well! I’m glad we got that sorted out! The idea of attaching numbers to names sounds positively dystopian! And none of us like that sort of thing!
Another angle: imagine how you would caricature each candidate if you were one of the Guardian cartoonists (Steve Bell etc.)
Some ideas currently under development . . .
Ken Clarke: John Bull (Falstaffian, Churchillian) juggling cigars and fedoras. “We shall welcome them on the beaches, we shall welcome them on the landing grounds” etc.
David Davis: the manager of the ‘navy blues’ (Cons United), hired to save the club from relegation to Division 3, “Yeah, well, we may not have won, but there were a lot of positives to take from the game. I mean - three own goals - gives a wrong impression, doesn’t it?”
Liam Fox: The attack mouse - eyes close together, big teeth, talking interminably, but never answering any questions.
Theresa May: The avenger - kinky dominatrix in black rubber suit with leopard print boots, overtones of Bond/Honor Blackman etc.
Malcolm Rifkind - The mad hatter - genial, myopic, a master of mistiming, always turning up in the wrong place and wrong time, going round in circles and always arriving back where he started.
Not sure about David Cameron. Of course Boris Johnson IS Boris Johnson!
Interesting, John East. Maybe he’s too young
Boris reply to your last line by saying that he’s too offbeat for the old guard and they probably don’t want him anywhere near the leadership spectrum. Good to have your kind words though!
I think Lucy must be the Labour HQ plant on this site - suggesting Anne Widdicombe for the leadership!
I’m not entirely convinced Boris is entirely sound on certain key issues - Europe and the War on Terror to name but two. However as a personality, yes he would certainly get my (non-existent) vote for the leadership.
Regarding the issue of a name change, I think one has to distinguish between a name change designed to avoid real and necessary change and a name change that is indicative of real and necesary changes having been put into effect. I think Conservatives/Tories (/Unionists if you like) underestimate what a considerable vote blocker their name is because they don’t understand the depth of the cultural changes that have been going on in the country.
I think we have seen a left-liberal takeover of the “commanding heights” of the media; millions of people who never did previously now pass through some form of higher education and are exposed to left-liberal ideology; people themselves are “class cameleons” and they expect their PM to be one - as he is; the super-rich have mostly thrown in their lot with,or are not perturbed by New Labour, who do nothing to dent their super-wealth; there are now millions of voters or immigrant stock who will only ever vote for Labour or Lib Dem.
Taking all these changes together I think we can see that the Tory vote base is being eroded and will continue to erode as the older generations die off. I think the effects have been slightly masked by the tendency of older people to vote more than the young.
My analysis is therefore that the Tories need to take active steps to expand their voter base. I think it can be done but only if they make a serious appeal to the anti-scrounger, patriotic, law abiding majority. Part of this process invovles a name change to reduce voter resistance. And of course the name has to be bullet-proof which is why I suggested “Democrat”.
John East
David C used to be a trendy go-ahead researcher in Central Office and very cliquey. His latest speeches seem to be painfully patronising - ie Britain needs this, needs this — “hey man”, I felt like saying - “hold your horses, you’re going OTT on the dictatorial handing out of prescriptive ideas of what you think I need”. In one way he’s suave like Portillo. On the other hand, he does seem to be getting better as the years go by (for instance he’s shown loving care in the face of his firstborn son born with medical problems - and promotes help to others in a similar position) and Boris says he might support him. They went to the same school etc.
Secretely I think Boris suppots Ken Clarke as he did before. How awkward it must be when your old school chum puts himself up for grabs and asks for your wholehearted support.
Boris is already a giant so he won’t be preoccupying himself too much about the potential kingpins.
Melissa: “Boris would say he’s too offbeat for the old guard and they probably don’t want him anywhere near the leadership spectrum.”
Perhaps there are two kinds of politician? Type A who mature early, going straight for high flying careers, paying some kind of price on the way in terms of lost integrity (Blair and Brown). Sometimes they burn out, sometimes they find a new life later and claim back something of what that they have lost (Portillo obviously, also Hague).
Type B are slow starters who compromise less at the beginning, have a more difficult passage, but retain more honesty. They have more stamina and are less likely to be knocked off course by scandals and indiscretions. Having sacrificed less to political expediency, they retain more self-esteem and enjoy life more. They may get to the top but not before they are 50 or 60.
Surely Boris is Type B, even if he is lucky enough to possess a Type A constituency.
Field
I think the Conservatives have more right to call themselves Democrats than the current bunch of PC warriors with the word Democrats in their title. The problem would be that if the others are seen as Liberal (which they ain’t either) Democrats then what would that make the Conservatives - Illiberal Democrats ?
Our Conservative candidate came over really well in May. If it hadn’t been for the fact that our not so bad Labour MP was under attack from the LDs and various shades of Respect I might have voted for her. There was nothing special about her background but she had worked hard, got a good degree, in engineering I think, and was in business. She clearly was a problem solver who seem to realised that ordinary working people of all classes and ethnicities had problems to be solved, not neccesarily by throwing money around but often by removing obstacles put there by government. But she has an uphill struggle because voting Conservative round here is ‘uncool’. What’s the answer? I don’t know. It’s tempting to say that the Conservatives should drop spin, focus groups and nice image -building. Remember the pullovers? I hope you guys can sort it out because I don’t want people to be elected or not just because they are cool or uncool. Competence, ability and a commitment to a free, democratic society is what I want. Able Competent Democrats is a lousy name but that’s waht the name should at least hint at.
FIELD? ! What? I am NOT in any way asocited with the enemy, thanks very much. I’m blue through and through.
Melissa, yes I shall be there. Can’t wait. I’m one of those eager, keen shiny people.
I’ll rugby tackle the contenders to the floor to get a glimpse of how they are in the rough and tumble of politics.
I’m going with a few friends, taking over a hotel, of course. Or possibly just a floor…
Are you going, Melissa?
Hi Lucy
We believe you, we do!!
I’m staying at a dear little guesthouse a bit of a way out for a couple of days and perhaps we could meet at one of the fringe meetings Boris will be addressing?
I always have a great time, even if its in a bit of a quiet contemplative way. I’m not a great one for living it up till the early hours but I love breakfast meetings.
See you there!
Simon
You might be right about the Type B
ps do you realise this must be a record post achieving 100 COMMENTS in merely two days !!!!
It was all your idea THANK YOU
Thanks for the kind comments guys!
To be honest I think that there’s only one real way to change the name of the Conservatives without it looking too much like vote-grabbing, and that’s to couple it with a new and fresh leader, like Labour’s “New-Labour” trick with Blair. Personally I think that the only way this could work is with David Cameron, or else another young and new candidate.
Other than this only a party split would do it, and I assume that’s undesireable to everyone. Besides the party’s not divided enough for that really.
But I do think it’s important to get that right. A name change has to accompany a complete change in image. If people look at the change in image and think “yet another tory trick”, then all the bad associations will hook themselves onto the new image and the whole business will be for nothing. If it’s done carefully then it could be a big success, but otherwise it would be a big waste of time, effort, and money.
Perhaps I’m being too cynical and it could be done more easily, I’m not sure, but either way it would have to be done with a lot of care. Other than that concern, I think it might be a reasonable idea.
Melissa: “do you realise this must be a record post achieving 100 COMMENTS in merely two days !!!!”
All credit to our terrific blog mistress!
The next time somebody writes a history of the great political hostesses (Lady Astor etc.), they will have to give you a chapter, giving due credit to the kindly and generous welcome you have given to those of us who don’t come from the blue range of the political spectrum.
Well how about having me as the next Tory leader? My friend told me tht there r two types of Tory, these are
1.The Tory - this person decides to support tory party and its ideologies
2. The Tory Bastard - This is a person tht was plain and simply born a Tory and can never change this
Of course my friend accuses me of being the original TB.
I am also intelligent, witty and have a large mop of thick blonde hair tht controls itself
I would love to lead the Tories although I still am not quite as seductive as our very own Boris
Sabriam, thanks, we can make it a two-person revolution in the party, huh?
Melissa, I hope Boris doesn’t mind, but I overhauled my blog, and due to a strange creative whim I went Russian. He has now became ‘Comrade Boris’ in my faves. This doesn’t mean I expect him to become a raving leftie, altho if he wants to sport a ‘millionpieces - procrastinate the revolution’ tee-shirt on tele, I’ll make sure he gets one sent 
Jack Ramsey,
You suggested the name Able Competent Democrats, and suggested that coolness was a factor in how voters voted. How about adding Collective to the end and coming up with an ultra-cool (well at least when I were a lad) acronym.
ACDC now there is a way to get some young and some not so young people to vote for the party 
Later
Gengee
Gengee
Possibly Able Competent Democratic Chaps, where chaps is used inclusively genderwise, might hit the spot better. Is ACDC still cool though - the term not the meaning?
Obviously Competent Able Democrats is a non-starter.
We need a new competion for a name.
True blue Lucy? Then you must be floating in the blue yonder if you think Ann Widdicombe would make a good Tory leader! However, don’t let me put you off - I believe in free speech.
ACDC! Wouldn’t that confirm that other negative stereotype of the Tories that they all harbour secret sexual pecadilloes? Some of us haven;t quite recovered from Edwina’s revelation.
Blondism…surely blonde has never been associated with political success, unless you are counting Margaret Thatcher - but somehow I never thought of her as blonde. Blonde is associated with infants and hence an absence of the faculty of mature judgment (sorry, Boris - nothing personal).
Hi - I only discovered this site today, I wish I’d discovered it ages ago!It’s been educational to go through and read all the different points of view.
I think the leadership campaign is going to be exciting and, hopefully, the start of a long trail back for us.
I’ve been a Conservative supporter since childhood - really since 1979, seeing my parents dance around the room celebrating Maggie’s victory, and witnessing their joy as tax rates started to come down to manageable levels. It’s sad that the strong achievements of the early years of Conservative government are now ignored, and children are taught to say ‘Thatcher’ as if they were spitting!
There’s one thing that worries me about this buildup to the leadership election. I’ve listened to each of the candidates, and so far I’ve heard all of them talk about ‘coming back to power’ or versions thereof.
Does anyone else feel that this is perhaps a poor message to send to the electorate - a message that power is more important than principle?
As the campaign goes on, I’m hoping to hear candidates talking more about values and principles. Not necessarily winning the next Election - but staying in place, standing firm and holding on to principles, showing the electorate what our values are and that we adhere to them, rather than appearing solely interested in power.
And my �0.02 about the candidates so far:
- Ken Clarke: too smug and tainted by the problems
of the previous Conservative government. Oh, and
I don’t believe in the Euro, and I’m unconvinced
by his recent denouncements;
- Tim Yeo: see above about tainting.
- David Davies: Powerful within the Party, less
known outside it. Could (and probably would) be
seen as another IDS/WH.
- Liam Fox: Only heard him this morning. Possible.
- David Cameron: Young, ambitious, articulate.
Untainted by the previous problems. He might be
seen as too young, but maybe what we need is a
gamble on a younger man.
Regards
Neil
Golly. You go away for… oh, all of 12 hours… and no-one’s any closer to deciding the ‘Boris Johnson Website Leader of Choice’.
I don’t expect Boris IS in the running for the top job, but couldn’t we all lobby for him to get his old Shadow Arts job back again? I thought he was dead interesting doing that. AND he appreciates Hogarth.
Wat’s everyone got against Whigs and Tories? Bring back the old names, sez I. MUCH better than getting your heads in a whirl trying to come up with an acronym that uses the word democrat without sounding like the Liberal Democrats. Who were better when they were just called the Liberals anyway.
Whig. Tory. Labour. Liberal. Keep it simple, stupid.
Vicus Scurra: “Over 100 comments and still no sign of a decent leader. . . .”
Vicus Scurra of Kingsley, Hampshire has a good point, as ever.
Judging by the discussion so far, there seems little chance of a leader emerging who is acceptable to the party as a whole, let alone the country.
If the right wing will not accept Ken Clarke and can’t come up with a decent candidate of their own (which surely is the case here) then maybe they should ask Michael Howard to stay on. He is an articulate, thoroughly professional politician - and he’s younger than Clarke!
Gemma: In the circumstances I think they should take you seriously as a candidate. Do you have a good set of publicity photos? You could put them up on website, maybe also with a podcast: “Hello, I’m Gemma and I’m standing for the leadership of the Conservative Party . . .”
I’d be happy to choose the theme music for you.
Thank you. Perhaps I should start this off then?
I’m not a member of the Conservative Party, but I would like to see the party strongly led - for the sake of parliamentary democracy, and to act as a check on bad government (of which there is a lot!).
Opposition parties cannot realistically wait for the Labour government to self-destruct - there is every prospect that a Labour Government under Brown will actually be stronger than under Blair - so the Tories need a charismatic and inventive figure that is capable of seizing the initiative and talking up the right issues.
Maybe the best thing the Tory Party can do is to listen carefully to what Norman Tebbitt says - and then do the exact opposite? He is telling people not to support Kenneth Clarke.
Clarke may be lazy (as Tebbitt says), he may be too old, and his tobacco connections may be unfortunate, but his judgement has been proven sound (re Iraq) and he is trusted by the public, he is a thorough-going democrat (re House of Lords reform), and has the confidence (as a successful ex-Chancellor) and general chutzpah to challenge the government.