Comments | caramel_betty: Politics

caramel_betty

Politics

Oct 14, 2005 16:57

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4340280.stm
First Minister Rhodri Morgan says all Welsh assembly politicians face "disgrace and humiliation" if they fail to agree a budget.So why not compromise then? You're leading a minority administration, you can't act as though you ( Read more... )

welsh politics, proportional representation, conservative party, politics

Comments 14

bopeepsheep October 14 2005, 16:15:24 UTC

Cameron is my parents' MP (and, if it counts, Jack Straw's). This whole campaign worries me for as yet un-pinned-down reasons, particularly if he's successful. (Mind you, before the one that defected, whose name I have now forgotten, it was Douglas Hurd. He worried me too, but for different reasons.)

caramel_betty October 14 2005, 16:21:59 UTC

Cameron is my parents' MP (and, if it counts, Jack Straw's). This whole campaign worries me for as yet un-pinned-down reasons, particularly if he's successful.Whichever way it goes, I can see recriminations and witch-hunts as those who were believed to have been briefing are rooted out and humiliated, behind the scenes ( ... )

bopeepsheep October 14 2005, 16:28:18 UTC

Shades of early 1980s Labour about it all.

I don't think it's external, either. It's going to be a horrible mess to sort out whatever happens. And I reckon a Clarke/Cameron alliance isn't unlikely, but that there could well be shafting going on there too, even more mess to fall out before they get themselves sorted. Daft buggers.

Do you mean 'less abhorrent' as in 'he is currently abhorrent [to women voters] but could improve' or as in 'he could come across as less abhorrent than the Labour alternative'?

caramel_betty October 14 2005, 16:40:54 UTC

Do you mean 'less abhorrent' as in 'he is currently abhorrent [to women voters] but could improve' or as in 'he could come across as less abhorrent than the Labour alternative'?

Many of the swing voters that the Conservative party need to attract won't - when polled - vote for Michael Howard, or several of the potential candidates. David Cameron would still be leading the Conservative party, with all the baggage that that brings, but his Conservative party would likely be less abhorrent to those swing voters than the Conservative party as it is now.

How this would compare against the Labour alternative of the future, under Gordon Brown or whoever, is difficult to gauge. But taking it just as "Might I vote for the Conservative party?", I'd lay money that quite a few of the swing voters would less inclined to vote against Cameron than e.g. Rifkind or Fox, possibly Davis too.

Thread 5

burkesworks October 14 2005, 16:28:01 UTC

Fox worries me less than Clarke for the simple reason that a party led by Fox would be unelectable. Chances are it is Clarke's team that are briefing against Cameron; Clarke may come across on the surface as more "moderate" but a close examination of his policies shows him as much more statist and less libertarian than any of the other three contenders. As for Davis, I've a feeling that his campaign is a busted flush after his disastrous speech at Blackpool.
I can't see the rank and file choosing anyone other than Cameron if they want to remain a credible opposition, let alone form any kind of future government; and while I'm no Tory, that's precisely what I hope the result will be, otherwise we'll be lumbered with Tony and his successors for eternity.

caramel_betty October 14 2005, 16:47:05 UTC

The rank and file in, say, the Labour party might well make the pragmatic choice (especially given the say of union bosses and MPs in the final vote), but the Conservative party rank and file are really, really out of step with political savvy of that nature, IMO ( ... )

strongtrousers October 14 2005, 17:05:12 UTC

As one of the few who remains a Tory supporter, I'm worried. If they fail to elect Clarke they will lose the next election. I might still vote for them if Cameron gets in, but he's far too inexperienced to compete. Davis is like Duncan Smith again but with more madness, and Fox is a loony. No, wait, I like the Loonies. Nutjob then. If either of those two get in my vote goes whizzing directly over to the Lib Dems and will be unlikely to return any time soon, despite, and candidates take note, my significant Euroscepticism.

caramel_betty October 15 2005, 20:02:19 UTC

I think that, in order, the candidates stand the best chance of winning the next election as follows: Clarke, Cameron, Davis, Fox. I think that

Clarke could win (but probably would just make substantial gains)
Davis would perform similarly to Michael Howard
and Fox could lose some seats (as the Lib Dems would be able to win quite a few more votes based on the "But the Conservatives are EVIL" undertones which would cause Conservative marginals to change hands to whoever the marginal was contested with).

I'm not convinced Davis is more mad than Duncan Smith, but I think - as I've said - that there's a strong possible element of "Don't vote for The Quiet Man again" in the run-off. Assuming the Tory electorate are capable of being swayed by that level of pragmatism ( ... )

juggzy October 14 2005, 18:17:29 UTC

This is the tory primate election to lose, to be quite honest.

srk1 October 14 2005, 19:54:56 UTC

I appear to be one of the only people who saw Cameron's speech who was completely nonplussed by it. It was *OK*, in a shadow education secretary-type way, but hardly inspiring, and certainly nowhere near the level Tony Blair was at in 1994. William Hague mk II I say, and I still think (from their point of view) that Davis is the best option, even if no-one else does.

vashti October 15 2005, 09:10:59 UTC

I don't know about his leadership abilities, but he's got amazing hair. I'd like to see them elect Clarke, who seems like at least a sensible (if evil) chap, but in an ideal world I'd like to see the Conservatives disappear into history and the Lib Dems become the opposition (and then government).

I tend to agree with someone who was on Any Questions last week (the name escapes me) - the Conservatives are looking for their Tony Blair, but they haven't yet found their Neil Kinnock - someone who will make them realise and come around to the fact that the party has to change.

caramel_betty October 15 2005, 20:08:18 UTC

Bill Rammell, Labour MP for Harlow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions_transcripts_20051007.shtml
And I draw a contrast between the state of the Conservative Party today, eight years after its first election defeat, to where the Labour Party was, warts and all, back in '83 and '85 where there was a battle raging within the - inside the Labour Party for its soul and Neil Kinnock was saying - you have got to change, you have to face up to the modern world, you have to face up to where ordinary people are at. I just don't get the sense that that battle is raging within the Conservative Party and I don't yet get the sense that anybody is prepared to confront the Conservative Party membership in terms of their prejudices. [[snippity snip]] So it's about the substance, there's been a lot of talk this week about which of the candidates is the Conservative Party's Tony Blair, I think the problem is they've not yet found a Neil ( ... )

caramel_betty October 15 2005, 20:10:14 UTC

I don't think he'd be William Hague. I think he's somewhat more media savvy than Hague, and wouldn't do the wonderful jumpers, baseball caps and log flume stupidities.

Whilst there was quite a lot of gushing, I think in parts the gushing flows from "Wow, he's new, he's supposed to be shit and we're supposed to hate him for being younger than us" combined with "Didn't David Davis perform like a complete bag of bollocks?" rather than just sheer enthusiasm for Cameron. At least, I think that's what sustaining the memories of his conference performance in a somewhat more rosy light than they could otherwise be.