Meet the man who claims he toppled Blunkett
September 30th, 2005-
Is David Davis really the man gamblers should thank?
One of the great bets at the end of last year was the 7/2 you could get against David Blunkett not surviving until the end of December in all the furore over the Kimberely Quinn paternity case. Blunkett was of course Home Secretary and David Davis was his Tory shadow.
Until yesterday’s formal launch of the David Davis campaign for the Tory leadership not everybody, we guess, fully realised the part that Davis played in Blunkett’s departure. For in a BBC potted history of the paternity affair the Shadow home Secretary’s name appears just once and that was a reference to a call he made sixteen days before the departure.
-
But according to the short biography on his campaign website one of Davis’s achievements, we are told, was that it was he who “prompted” Blunkett’s resignation.
This follows the the Newsnight feature on Wednesday which questioned the extent of his role in coming to the aid of a gay teenager while he was at school - something that he has spoken about. That can be explained because it was all a long time ago and people have different memories.
The Blunkett claim is different because he is talking about something that happened amidst a huge amount of publicity just ten months ago and is within people’s recall. You have to be careful about taking the credit for things that people know about.
Tory leadership betting prices
Conventional bookmakers best price: Davis 8/15: Clarke 11/4: Cameron 10/1: Fox 12/1: Rifkind 33/1 Betfair betting exchange: Davis 0.6/1: Clark 2.85/1: Cameron 8.8/1: Fox 11.5/1: Rifkind 84/1 BinaryBet spread market. Davis 56-63: Clarke 23-29: Cameron 5-9 Fox 5-9: Rifkind 1-3
MessageSpace Advertising
Here’s last nights by-election results:
http://scottish-independence.blogspot.com/2005/09/three-excellent-performances.html
Livingston constituency
Westminster by-election
29 September 2005
(change from election 2005)
1. Labour 42% (-9%)
2. Scottish National Party 33% (+11%)
3. Liberal Democrats 15% (-1%)
4. Conservatives 7% (-3%)
5. Scottish Green Party 2% (-)
6. Scottish Socialist Party 1% (nc)
7. UKIP 0.4% (-)
8. “Independent” 0.2% (-)
9. Alliance for Change 0.1% (-)
10. Socialist Party of Great Britain 0.1% (-)
Turnout 39% (-20%)
LAB HOLD - swing from Labour to SNP of 10.2%
Glasgow Cathcart constituency
Scottish Parliamentary by-election
29 September 2005
(change from general election 2003)
1. Labour 38% (-2%)
2. Scottish National Party 22% (+6%)
3. Conservative and Unionist 15% (+2%)
4. Liberal Democrats 10% (+2%)
5. “Independent” Pat “Lazarus” Lally 6% (-)
6. Scottish Socialist Party 5% (-7%)
7. Scottish Green Party 4% (-)
8. “Independent” 0.4% (-)
9. United Kingdom Independence Party 0.4% (-)
Turnout 32% (-11%)
LAB HOLD - swing from Lab to SNP of 3.7%
Auchtertool and Burnisland East ward
Fife Council by-election
29 September 2005
(change from council elections 2003)
1. Scottish National Party
2. Labour
3. “Independent”
4. Liberal Democrats
5. Conservative
Turnout
SNP GAIN FROM IND
Sorry I haven’t got the detailed results yet for Fife, but for your info, the result last time was: IND 30% LAB 29% SNP 25% LD 17% and the LibDems had actually held the ward as recently as 2003. A big collapse for the lap-dogs.
Mike,is this to be phase 2 of the campaign ?
Pretty low stuff, I’m disappointed you’ve chosen to go there.
3 - I think Mike’s article is pretty fair comment. The press is much more to thank than DD for getting rid of Blunkett (sadly, only temporarily).
3. I think Kimberly Quinn (or is her name Kimberly Queen?) could cliam Blunkett’s scalp better than Davis.
Kimberly for Leader
TB @ 2. If your man does get selected then every aspect of his life until now will be crawled over by the media and opponents. Having a reputation for embellishment might not be very smart. Taking the credit for things when you were only part of the story is not a good idea.
Having watched the launch and this week’s coverage I now think that Davis will be beaten in the membership ballot by whoever he is up against.
5. Even Fox?
If so could be worth a punt - all it would need is for Davis tactical voting to get him in the top 2. He’s now 12-1 on Betfair.
5. “Having a reputation for embellishment might not be very smart.”
Worked for Tony Blair
I was at the Davis launch yesterday and was distinctly underwhelmed. His speech was quite well delivered and what he had to say I agree with but his handling of the questions was poor.
He has a tendency to mumble and not form his words properly. When under pressure and not rehearsed, his sentences tail away into a mumble. I expect a lot better from a potential leader.
By contrast Cameron was bright and energetic. Its a bit of shame he has no chance really!
I was very impressed with Ken Clarke on Question Time last night. He at least is projecting the image of a leader. He is pleasant assured and (seeemingly) well respected by the audience. He was a pleasant contrast to the patronising, school marm like Patricia Hewitt and the “Christian Voice” nutter!
I am still floating!
The characteristic any leader needs is to be lucky. There are various (obviously imprecise) ways of trying to examine this ‘luck’ from different angles. One in particular that has ‘legs’ is the ‘teflon’ quality.
In politics, the only measurable quality needed is to be a good speaker. Look at the (quite underserved) credit that was awarded to Blair after his comments post 7/7/05.
The problem for an analytical site like this one is that many posters don’t actually seem to like the fact that such an indefinable quality as luck is actually the key. They prefer to study, and comment on, individual policies, alliances, political achievements and other more quantifiable measures. MS and I and a few others think this completely misses the point. One contributor actually wondered whether Hague could ‘get lucky’. Just asking the question…
7 - “Worked for Tony Blair ;-)”
True. It would be interesting to see if Brown tried to attack it though, like Bush very successfully did to Gore in 2000. “He said he invented the internet!” - er, no he didn’t, but the perception stuck.
8- I can never decide what I like better the sound of Patricia Hewitt’s voice or the sound of nails scratching against a blackboard (sorry Ben!). After Ian McCartney she would be my ideal choice for Labour leader.
I thought Ken was good as well (but then I would). Disapointed I cant make it to the conference (flying out to Barcelona on Monday - working unfortunately) it would have been good to hear the various speeches. I’m hoping I can get my girlfriend to record them for me without her thinking I’m a truely tragic individual!
Re: 8 - very rare that I agree with Rik, but Clarke still has the gravitas that eludes most politicians. It’s clear that if non-Tories could choose the Tory leader, Clarke would be a shoo-in. The problem is, we’ve been here before. Clarke had gravitas in 1997 and 2001 especially outside the Conservative party.
I still think it will be Davis and Clarke on the members’ ballot. I think it’s too early to pass judgement on Davis - if/when he’s elected, there will be opportunities aplenty for him to prove himself.
Cameron did put down an impressive marker for next time. I suppose he might reason that as he was once Howard’s “heir”, he might become Clarke’s who, I suspect, even if he made it to Downing Street, would only serve one term.
If Davis wins and makes it to Downing Street, Cameron faces a longer wait and the prospect of being outmanoeuvred by Osborne, who, by opting out of the whole shambles, has played an immensely intelligent game.
I would be far more interested in backing Osborne to be the Tory leader after next than I would in the Tories winning the next election.
OT Result of the Thailand Open by election :
Andy Murray : Scottish Tennis Jacobite Party 6:4 6:3
Robby Ginepri : American Hanovarian Alsoran Liberal Democrat 6:3
Scottish Tennis Jacobite Gain
Effortless Swing
11.”After Ian McCartney ”
Ian McCarthey reminds me of Chucky, a doll who starred in a 80’s horror movie.
http://www.nostalgia.com/posters/60983.JPG
12 - I wonder what Osborne will get in the new leader’s shadow cabinet. Surely it is not credible that we will remain as Shadow Chancellor. He might be best served by something like Health - particularly if KC is leader, so Osborne can represent a different perceived Tory approach from that of the 1980s, and push the “you paid the taxes, so why are you still on the waiting list?” argument.
12 - “I would be far more interested in backing Osborne to be the Tory leader after next than I would in the Tories winning the next election.”
I concur. Wouldn’t rule out Vaizey either.
14 - “Surely it is not credible that we will remain as Shadow Chancellor”
Why not?
Sorry, I meant “15 - “
I concur about Vaizey as well. Was his father a Labour peer?
19 - He was. Also noticed that Clement Attlee’s grandson (who looks just like him) is now a Tory peer.
14, 17 - ” Surely it is not credible that we will remain as Shadow Chancellor.”
“We” should have been “he”. I would not like to start speculation either that I am George Osborne, or that he has a royalty complex.
I think that either DD or KC would want a key ally as Shadow Chancellor - and more of a parliamentary big hitter than Osborne is; despite his undoubted talents he still doesn’t have extensive Commons experience. Not that I expect the Tories to listen to Lib Dem advice, of course.
Mike Smithson - I hope there are going to be similar articles on the other candidates. Looking forward to the true Ken Clarke piece were you examine the unpopular things he did in government ( as Hewitt was alluding to last night), BAT, how europe is not a dead issue, etc.
Otherwise alex would have been right when he mistakenly gave Ken Clarkes website as polticalbetting.com. Looking forward to seeing the balance.
15 - It depends fundamentally on who is leader. One of the problems of Cameron is that he might be tempted to bypass a whole generation of MPs to continue the approach of giving the Tory party a completely fresh look. On the other hand Clarke is possibly far more likely to grab politicians from the nineties and will need to find space for some ideological (pragmatical?) allies in the shadow cabinet.
22 — This misses the whole point of PB.com. It is not meant to give us BBC-balanced views on all runners. What’s valuable is that Mike steps off the fence, comes down on one side and makes a case. If you disagree — then you can bet against him. But he’s under no obligation to run tedious “on the one hand, on the other hand” pieces. He’s put his money where his mouth is, what more could you want.
I would expect an article on Ken Clarke looking at the aspects you mention — but don’t be surprised if the betting conclusion is that his popularity outweighs any downside from these matters.
22 - tbh Mike can do what he wants, it’s his site. On the other hand commentators can point out where bias seems to be creeping into his articles and he can take it on board. Personally i think of all the negatives one can produce about Davis, this is somewhat irrelevant.
I would be interested in some more detailed examination of the voting system, perhaps with reference to what happened in 2001. Plenty of scope to talk down Davis there - you just have to cast him as Portillo! (or even himself ;-))
Perhaps that can wait until after the Conference, which has huge significance. It is true that Davis has a significant handicap from his total lack of press support - the Telegraph doing its best to wreck the election as usual.
25 - Exactly. Well said!
25 alex. The conference will be critical to the race. And the ensuing mood music will give us a good guide to the feeling towards candidates.
I have to say I’m suprised at the luke warm effort from DD yesterday and most of the media have rightly indicated that in comparison to the DC launch, DD looked and sounded paralysed by frontrunner status. Yesterday damaged DD in my view. He’ll clearly stroll into the final two, but I wonder if it’s starting to dawn on Tory members that if DC shines in comparison with DD on a big day, how will DD cope in the spotlight as leader let alone the intensity of a GE campaign ?
Agree with the general tone of the comments here- it’s disappointing that Mike has climbed down into the mud.
When I first encountered this site, what I liked about it was the apparent broad spread of views and Mike’s balanced well-informed posts towering over the whole. Resorting to Davis bashing on the basis of the BBC (the BBC!!!) version of reality is…yes, extremely disappointing.
“Resorting to Davis bashing on the basis of the BBC (the BBC!!!) version of reality is…yes, extremely disappointing.”
Well, it’s not just the BBC version, is it? It’s not like none of us was around at the time of the Blunkett affair.
28.”BBC (the BBC!!!)”
Dennis Skinner has said this week that the BBC is very righ wing. Like the Daily Mail.
27 - I think he’s desperate not to take any risks which could subsequently turn into mistakes. It’ll be interesting to see if that strategy changes next week in the light of some of the slightly lukewarm press.
The scary thing about this contest is that Clarke is the best candidate. He is 65, stubborn and egotistical, and was a leading member of a very unpopular government. And yet he is STILL the best candidate! This speaks volumes about the poverty of talent in the Conservative party. Davis will be another IDS, maybe not quite so incompetent, but certainly not the kind of charismatic figure needed these days. Cameron may be one for the future but should have stayed out of this contest for fear of ruining himself a’la William Hague. Long-term the Tories only cause for optimism is a similar lack of talent within Labour - all of their leading figures are in their 50s/60s and once Brown has had his turn, who are the young pretenders coming up on the rails? David Miliband? Ed Balls? Labour may go the way of the Tories under Thatcher and Major, with the party crumbling in the wake of too many election victories.
Wat - Could you please respond to the claims above that DD was lacklustre yesterday and is general weak when it comes to speeches and media relations as a whole? As a floating-vote Tory I have noticed that you never answer these central concerns, namely that DD lacks the charisma and gravitas to grab voters’ attention away from Nu Lab.
28 Wat. You really have to accept that it’s Mike site, he’s not a BBC govenor. He indicates his betting position, then tells us why, and we can agree or disagree as we please. Mike is not an umpire !
BTW - Poor reception for your man yesterday - fraying at the edges ! or did you think it was a triumph
Sophia, are you still lurking out there?
David Miliband is excellent. And he actually makes efforts to answer interviewer’s questions
I think you underestimate some of the talent on the Labour benches which has had to wait its turn for a few years doing the hard yards in the state ministerial posts.
36 - They may (or may not) be able ministers but do any of them have a noticeable personality? In an age where everything is about image and celebrity, politicians are actually becoming duller.
32. “the poverty of talent in the Conservative party”
Osbourne, Gove, Vaizey, Cameron, Willets (if not in front of a camera), Hague, Rifkind. I’d take the likes of them over our current Cabinet any day.
Re 32 I tend to think there’s a decent amount of young brainpower on the Lab side - Milibands, Balls, Cooper, Kelly (over-promoted, but smart), Lammy, Alexander, probably others (Nick?) plus a few who lost but may well return. Not so sure about strength in depth, though.
I think I tend to agree with this:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1057-1804196,00.html
I can see why people would vote for DD. “I lived on a council estate, but life wasn’t bad.” v.good sentence IMO, not surprising the Indy use it as a heading.
36 - I quite like Miliband, D.
AHM - I am still lurking here!
re 32 again. perceptive point about Clarke. I’m finding it hard to assess whether he really has got solid teflon coating or whether it would peel off under the scrutiny of leadership. I’d like to think the latter (as I think making £££ with BAT while serving as an MP is shameful) but rather suspect the former. However, I also feel Clarke could peak within a year or two (unless recession, of course). TB/GB could play the long game and Clarke might not look quite so bubbly approaching 70.
38. Between the new tory intake, I would add Nick Herbert too (a DD’s man).
Btw, Bob Marshall Andrews said that the Left is thinking to challenge Blair with a stalking horse next year. They would need 71 signatures (and then a card vote at the conference): they’ve only 36 names at the moment.
They would like to challenge Brown too. The names under discussions are Michael Meacher, Alan Simpson and Frank Dobson.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article316106.ece
The kind of talent I’m referring to isn’t brainpower, it’s charisma, chutzpah, willpower. If intellect was the criteria for leadership then Dr David Starkey would be prime minister.
42 - I think the stuff about BAT is irrelevant. They make a product that people enjoy and that people are aware has dangers associated with it. I’m astonished at the Tories who dislike KC who become all PC and nanny statist just because KC helps sell fags. I smoke, I know its not good for me but I love it!
Far too early for schadenfreude as DD is still probably the front-runner, but I do wonder naughtily what noble thoughts are going through the minds of the likes of Damian Green and Ian Taylor.
Being naturally chaps of the utmost principle, devoted solely to the interests of the party, I’m sure that ruminations about personal career prospects would be considered base and unworthy ;), and that the Kuddly One, if elected, will remember affectionally their past loyalties rather than dwell on present desertion!
Ho, ho, ho.
43 Andrea. Meacher, Simpson and Dobbin - stalking horses
more like stalking the political knackers yard.
44 - Having met Dr Starkey I would say his chutzpah outweighs his intellect.
Edward Leigh outlines what Cornerstone demonds to leadership candidates:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4296944.stm
47. No, Jack. Simpson, Dobson and Meacher should be the real candidates against Brown. The name suggested as the stalking horse against Blair was John Austin.
Damm it Andrea, you have beat me to that exciting news.
45 - Max, the issue is a lot more complex than that and you know it.
It centres around the business activities of BAT in the Third World, where rules and regulations are far less stringent than they are here. I’m sure BAT have behaved within the letter of the law of the countries in which they operate. However, many UK citizens might decide that there is an ethical gap between what is permitted in other countries and what is permitted in this country, and conclude that they would expect a First World company to abide by First World rules wherever it operates.
I have no problem with informed adults, aware of all the risks, choosing to smoke and being offered advertising to influence which brand of cigarettes they consume. I do have a problem with using sophisticated advertising techniques, in countries where their use is not banned, to entice children to smoke because (a) children are by definition not “informed adults” and (b) smoking is adictive and an addiction formed in childhood can have profound consequences in adulthood.
It is up to individuals to decide if BAT have behaved in this fashion, and I am not suggesting they have, but were a company to act in such a way many would find this immoral (even if it is not illegal in the countries concerned). Consequently they would be right to question the judgement of a politician who accepts large sums of money from a company which engaged in such practices.
46 John O. I’m aware of 4 DD and 2 DC “names” who are considering their positions and I’m not talking the Kama Sutra, well apart from one and that’s another NoW story
BTW I understand that “discussions are ongoing” between the Fox and Leigh camps ! Code for Leigh not running .
50 - “John Austin”. Wasn’t his name once John Austin Walker? When did he become legless
…?
51. Sophia, who are you backing as tory leader? Were you a Cameronite(?) ?
[32][39][44] I very much agree with Houndtang’s original diagnosis. It seems to point to a structural crisis whereby parties no longer seem to be able to renew themselves effectively… one thing that this board has convinced me of is how poorly they now relate to the several political philosophies, one the one hand, and political “interests” on the other. (They still do in the USA.)
55 - Andrea of the 5 candidates (I am not forgetting Sir Malcolm, Nuala!) DC is my favourite. None of them are perfect that is for sure.
54. yes, he doesn’t like to use his full name.
Jack @53. Hmm, interesting…but I doubt if Taylor or Green will be among the re-ratters. They were both prominent on TV yesterday at the ‘welcoming party’.
50 Andrea. John “Who He” Austin
TB will be trembling !!!
52 Nanny Tabman. Pleeeaaaaaassssssseeeeee !!!
45 — as it is noted as a big negative among the general public at large (see the latest yougov poll), it would only point to the unrepresentative nature of the Tory party if it did not contain people within it who felt similarly.
Not that anyone asked, but I’ll take this opportunity to compile my current preferences:
1. AH Matlock
2. Rifkind
3. Cameron
4. Clarke
5. Davis
6. Me
7-60,000,000. Anyone else in the country
60,000,001. Liam Fox
60,000,002. Ed Leigh
60. Jack, he got one of the best Labour results in London (the fifth best result I think).
57. Thanks Sophia.
Mr W, looking at your cogent and densely argued response to Tabman in point 60, I wonder why you do not throw your own (no doubt ten-gallon) hat into the ring. If not for the leadership, perhaps as a “Two Brains” figure in the mould of David Willetts.
59 John O. I couldn’t possibly comment on the names !! but having declared, their absence from the declaration would really set the hare running. One newspaper that I daren’t name down Farringdon Road …. Oopps ….. is running a book on the first to rerat
Jack W
As a betting man (which I presume most people on this site are) I am very interested in your post 53. Might you want to say a bit more? Thanks!
53. Beware Mr W of self-interested sources. Cornerstone are enjoying themselves putting out pamphlets and talking to everyone.
61 - certainly there have been Tory posters on here who’ve felt similarly. How much this is sincere and how much it’s the desire to throw anything they can at KC is not for me to judge.
That said(TM), I agree with Tabman - the fact that BAT may not be breaking local laws doesn’t mean anyone here is obliged to approve of it. There is also the issue that the Treasury is unhappy at BAT’s perceived condoning of cigarette smuggling into the UK.
64 - Surely “two brain cells”
63 - Indeed, he’s a giant in Erith and Thamesmead…and, er, that’s about it…
I’ve decided. I’ll be going for Edward Leigh (in the absence of Laurence Robertson, of course).
41 - Sophia. Excellent! Tabbers spoke of these rumours swirling around about DD again yesterday and said that he wouldn’t post them on the open forum. I said that I thought as I have yet to hear anyone substantiate them that they are most likely a load of tosh, but he suggested that I might be able to get details from you. I’m itching to know! Could you email the brief version on alastairmatlock@gmail.com ? Thanks.
60 - Jack, so in your “swinging” free-marketry I presume you are quite happy for other products which it is legal to market and sell to adults to be advertised and sold to children? Shot guns? Pornography? Spirits? (ie - children need parenting, or nannies if you like; adults don’t) Perhaps you’d also like to defend Ken’s decisions on the point raised? Hmmm?
I’ve decided. I’ll be going for Edward Leigh (in the absence of Laurence Robertson, of course).
62 - Julian, Have you ever thought of yourself as a Peer of the Realm? An Ambassadorship? Let’s talk!
69. John, he’s only the stalking horse, then they would throw CLare Short in the ring. She’ll get 2 votes, but she’ll provide lots of fun
62. Julian, how would you rank my new favourite candidate for Tory leadership? She’s Kimberly Quinn.
64 Ms Nuala. Thank you for being cogent and dense.
Your post was most welcome as I’ve now denuded Messrs Ladbrokes of a hatfull (ten gallons indeed)of cash, having bet you would post before 2009 an item without mentioning Malc ! I now await the second coming to bring up a win double of epic proportions …… of which more later !
Signed Jack The Hatter of Deer Stalker and Kinkell.
The left can talk up a challenge but it means nothing. Blair will go at the time of his choosing. Brown just has to wait. And wait. And wait. And wait……..
Who are Rifkind’s MP supporters?
74 - My modest young mind has not thought of such things, but they do hold some appeal. I’m sure we can come to some kind of arrangement. Incidentally AHM, you can tell your wife from me that (with all due respect) she’s living in the past - a past in which a man could not emerge from an internet betting forum to lead the country. These days are behind us. Forward, not back.
75. KQ has done a wonderful job for us but she does not have the intellect of AHM. I therefore propose a “dream ticket” of AHM as Leader, supported by KQ who will add the glamour. Perhaps they could get free holidays in Italy at Andrea Towers? Do you have measures to block the paparazzi?
74 - AHM, What a let-down…you’re just like the others
Reward your mates and flatterers. Instead of Tony’s cronies, we’ll have Al’s Acolytes.
Well, I’m sorry, but you can kiss goodbye to my support at next Papal election
From PA
RESULTS
Bournemouth Borough Kinson North: Lib Dem 720, Lab 645, C 456, UKIP 126. (May 2003 Three seats Lib Dem 1154, 1076, 1030, Lab 728, 669, 663, C 420, 411, 401, Ind 272). Lib Dem hold. Swing 6.1% Lib Dem to Lab.
Derwentside District Stanley Hall: Lab 599, Lib Dem 199, BNP 118. (May 2003 Three seats Lab 1360, 1354, 1351, Lib Dem 429, C 291). Lab hold. Swing 0.4% Lab to Lib Dem.
East Sussex County Pevensey and Westham: C 1293, Lib Dem 406, Lab 147. (May 2005 - C 2374, Lib Dem 1553, Lab 834). C hold. Swing 15.3% Lib Dem to C.
Fife Council Auchtertool and Burntisland East: SNP 609, Lab 321, Ind 249, Lib Dem 71, C 54. (May 2003 Ind 479, Lab 462, SNP 400, Lib Dem 269). SNP gain from Ind. Swing 13% Lab to SNP.
Oswestry Borough Ruyton and West Felton: C unopposed. (May 2003 Two seats C 302, Ind 270, Lib Dem 225). C hold.
Rother District Bexhill St Stephens: C 470, Lib Dem 359, Lab 180. (May 2005 Two seats C 648, 631, Lib Dem 432, 339, Lab 235). C hold. Swing 4.6% C to Lib Dem.
Salford Borough Barton: Lab 676, Lib Dem 389, C 189, UKIP 137, Ind 93. (May 2003 Three seats Lab 1238, 1135, 984, Lib Dem 855, C 725, 692). Lab hold. Swing 4.8% Lib Dem to Lab.
Shepway District New Romney Town: C 560, Lab 175, Lib Dem 111. (May 2003 Two seats C 438. Lab 360, C 358, Lab 234, Lib Dem 129, 121). C gain from Lab. Swing 16.6% Lab to C.
Wealden District Pevensey and Westham: C 1229, Lib Dem 469, Lab 143. (May 2003 Three seats C 1245, 1233, 1135, Lib Dem 793, 781). Swing 10.1% Lib Dem to C.
Winchester City Olivers Battery and Badger Farm: Lib Dem 853, C 584, Lab 56. (May 2004 Lib Dem 1038, C 666, Lab 90). Lib Dem hold. Swing 1.4% Lib Dem to C.
80 - Oh come along now, John… I’ve already told you that you could be my Chancellor! What have you got to sulk about?
66 nick12. The essential here is that some natural Ken allies thought he wouldn’t run and frankly have deen suprised by his momentum and lack of in their own candidates. Further their own soundings have told them that the wider party have warmed to our Ken as the prospect of another loss looms. This has also been confirmed by several Tory posters.
67 Baskerville. Agreed. I’m aware of the games they are playing, but we’ll see if Leigh does stand. My source on this one says no.
72 Tabman. Within bounds if it’s legal in the country concerned I couldn’t give a fig or fag. We can’t nanny the world !
79 - Incidentally Julian, did I mention that this would be a hereditary peerage? None of this naff Labour life peerage business. I’m going to do patronage Tory style!
81 - small samples, but the Tories have been picking up some big swings on what should already have been a high starting point. What’s going on? A temporary blip, or something bigger?
82 - But you’re already manouvering to have Julian H as your eventual successor. And what are these unattributable briefings from Gerrard’s Cross about “psychological flaws”. Perhaps Sophia can arrange a private dinner to discuss the timing of your retirement
Yes, some very healthy swings there. Good stuff. Thanks for the update, Richard.
85. There you go. Obvious iinit? The Ken effect is already weaving its magic
:)
86 - I will not tolerate plotting! Tread carefully or you shall be off to Northern Ireland, my friend.
[76] Wasn’t Jck “The hat” Macvitie shot in the Blind Beggar by the Krays’ ?
[71] Well, Guido calls him “Basher” Davis…
[42] [52] BAT are constantly accused of connivance in cross border cigarette smuggling- and the Government of Bulgaria is said to be coming close to laying actual charges…
83 - “within bounds” … ahhh … but who decides where the bounds are, Jack? Nanny?
It would make sense for Leigh to stand. If he gets, say, 20 supporters then that is a very tempting group for one of the candidates to make some attempt to woo, especially if who gets into the run off looks tight.
Like I said before it would have made sense for Davis to hold some of his supporters back, in case things like this (defections) happened and to give him momentum when he might need it later. (reports were he had 75-80)
This research could be useful one day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4293520.stm
90 - Yes, I’ve seen that on Guido’s blog and very good reading it is, but you know, I tend to take what Guido writes with a pinch of salt.
83.” I couldn’t give a fig or FAG”
I’ve nothing to do with it!
79. I’ll do my best to protect AHM and KQ from paparazzi.
Btw, the Evening Standard’s article about drugs at Labour conference has made its way to Italian press. The second bestselling newspaper (a centre-left newspaper) run an article today about it (the journalist was able to talk about Kate Moss in it too)
Completely o/t here, but has anyone got an update on the Coalition talks in Berlin? From what I can tell, speculation is mounting that Schroeder is merely waiting for the results of the delayed election in Dresden on Sunday to retire for the good of the country. About bloody time too!
95 - At least ensure they get my best side, if they must take pictures.
96. If he really cares about the country, he shouldn’t let it to be ruled by Merkel
97. The problem is that I don’t know which side is your best one.
98 - She could hardly do any worse than he has.
99. If her performance as Chancellor is similar to her campaign’s results…..
86. John, listen to me and defect. I could name you Senior Master of Clare Short’s household.
100 - As bad as that may have been, she still beat Schroeder.
101. But you should look at the starting point. When Schroeder announced he was going to call new elections she almost had a 20% lead and at the end she had less than a 1%. Would you really call her a good campaigner? I wouldn’t even dare to compare her to Schroeder in terms of campaign skills.
Fortunately (unfortunately?) a person’s campaigning skills say little about their ability to run the country. Surely far more revealing is the fact that Schroeder was 20pts down in the first place!
I agree Alex. If campaigning skills were an indicator of how well someone would run the country, we would think Tony Blair was the greatest PM this country has ever had.
103. No one has said that a person’s campaigning skills says something about his/her ability to rule.
Re my “lack of objectivity” - dead right. I spent a decade as an editor with BBC national news and being balanced and objective is not how I approach the site.
When I express a strong view of a particular outcome I put money on it. Sometimes I’m wrong - usually when I’m overestimating the Lib Dems - but mostly I end up in profit. In my view we get better discussions in someone is taking an unequivocal view.
On the tory leadership I’ve switched three times. at first I was on Ken, then I switched my money to Cameron, and now I’m on Ken again.
91 Tabman. The country concerned sets the laws and the Board and shareholders of respective companies sell or not. It’s free trade !
106 - unclear if you’re saying that the BBC gave you good training for not being balanced and objective, or whether this site is a rebellion against the past!
105 - “if her performance as chancellor is similar to her campaign’s results”…
102 - Andrea, you have to remember that she had a fair bit of help ballsing things up from Kirchhof and Stoiber. Schroeder undoubtedly gets kudos for being a brilliant campaigner, but he does it by demonising others - in 2002 it was Bush over Iraq, this year it was Kirchhof over the flat tax, never mind the countless economic, fiscal and structural problems that exist in Germany that he has failed to address throughout his tenure. Alex is absolutely right when he says that a person’s ability as a campaigner is not necessarily indicative of their ability to govern, and this is certainly true in Schroeder’s case. I think it’s becoming pretty clear now that he is going to have to make way for Merkel. His performance on telly after the exit polls were released was pretty arrogant, even for him and I think he’s pushing his luck the longer he carries this charade on.
107 - agreed, Jack. And, were a particular country to decide that slavery was legal I’m sure that some companies would seek to fill the gap in that market. It wouldn’t stop it being unethical, which is the point I’m making, and UK consumers with-holding their trade from such companies (and their votes from the politicians who drew salaries from those companies) accordingly. It’s called consumer choice / democratic politics
109. Infact that sentence doesn’t say that her campaigning skills says something about his/her ability to rule.
It only says that she led a bad campaign and if her ability to rule are similar to her ability to run a campaign, it’s not a good sign. I’ve never said that her ability to are as bad as her campaign skills (there’s a big IF at the beginning of the sentence if you haven’t notice it.)
112 - of course Andrea. But your first statement was that for the good of the country Merkel shouldn’t be Chancellor. The first justification for this statement that you gave was her poor campaign. It does not seem totally unreasonable to think that you were implying a link between the two
I don’t think there is ANY reason to think that a person’s campaigning ability is an indication of how they will run a government. It is just an unfortunate by-product of democracy that we have to maintain the pretence that it does 
111 - aren’t there some instances where British subjects can be prosecuted for offences which break UK law committed abroad?
Actually, I think Merkel will do very well if she gets her chance. She seems very level headed and pragmatic to me.
111 Tabman. Don’t try and use your bar chart jiggery pockery with me !! There’s a world of difference between coffin sticks and slavery.
Selling fags in the third world does not, in my mind, cross the line ! Indeed if Andrea wants to ply his trade in Zimbabwe I’m sure Peter Tatchell will offer much help, especially on the arresting sight of Robert Mugabe. However I’ll not be buying shares in the venture.
108 Alex. I did not express it well. I spent a lot of my career with BBC News at a time when you would not express your political allegiance to colleagues for fear that your objectivity might be questioned. At the time I was on the “restricted list” and banned from any overt political activity. This was at a time, also, when all new staff were checked by the security services to make sure that they were OK.
One of the joys of leaving the Corporation was being able to get actively involved in politics.
Now I love talking and arguing and taking strong positions
113. The first comment about her being bad for Germany was only a way to tease A H Matlock.
I’m not responsible of any link someone could imply without my permission
And then I’m particularly bitter (the day didn’t start in the best way…), so don’t expect a easy ride today
110- I agree he was OTT during the election night.
116 - “There’s a world of difference between coffin sticks and slavery.”
Is there not a significant (though of course smaller) difference between marketing to children and marketing to adults? That is the particular objection many people have.
116 - different people have different lines. That’s the point.
117.”This was at a time, also, when all new staff were checked by the security services to make sure that they were OK.”
so it was like the Labour conference in these days!
119 - And is their any evidence that BAT are doing this. They tend to sell more expensive brands that most young people couldn’t afford to buy.
119 book value. I’m unconcerned about the advertizing. Nobody is forced to buy the product.
120 alex. Agreed.
122 - I can’t infallibly assess the accusations here. But in any case, Jack hasn’t argued that that’s an issue - he doesn’t care about selling to children if it’s legal in that country.
116 - Jack, it is you who is being obtuse and not adressing my arguments!
If you go back to my original post I am not saying that selling fags per se is unethical. I am arguing that using sophisticated advertising techniques in Third World Countries that do not have laws to ban such things, to poorly-educated adults, and children, is unethical, even though it is not illegal. Consequently First World consumers and voters have the right to be informed of these activities and make their judgements about the companies and politicians who overtly or tactily support such arrangements accordingly.
There’s no “bar-chart jiggery-pockery” about that - it’s pretty clear cut. If UK voters say “good on yer, Mr C, for trousering that money, those Third World kids must be pretty stupid!”, well that’s fine. Alternatively they might decide that they would expect someone they vote for to exercise the judgement that they wouldn’t want to be associated with such behaviour. I am pretty relaxed about it. The electorate will decide!
124 book value. Correct.
122 - “They tend to sell more expensive brands that most young people couldn’t afford to buy.” Fashion designers make clothes most women can’t afford to buy, but it does lead them to then go and buy the Tesco’s knockoff for 20pound instead.
125.”it is you who is being obtuse ”
A personal attack! How do you dare? Especially you!
123 - Thanks. Clear enough that there’s probably not much mileage in arguing further.
125 - They’ve already decided where Rushcliffe is concerned, haven’t they? Surely his local opponents have used this line of attack against him in previous campaigns.
127-”Fashion designers make clothes most women can’t afford to buy”
fashion designers make also clothes no woman in her right mind woul wear!
125 Tabman. I sure the Third World will be pleased to be the object of such patronizing Lib Dem musing, let alone what is unethical or not in their country !
130 - AHM, I take your point, but the campaign literature from all parties I saw in Rushcliffe concentrated on the positive attributes that the respective candidates had to offer, with the exception of UKIP which IIRC did have a piece about KC’s europhile tendencies and the damage” they might do. I can’t recall anyone mentioning his BAT links (and the implications thereof).
OTOH I am not a Labour Spin-Doctor so who’s to say what a concerted media campaign or a bit of push-polling might do?
132 - Furthermore, are voters going to care? I think the Lib Dems better have more than that to come at Ken with than his position with BAT, by which time he would have relinquished. I’ve said before, in a free country, it shouldn’t matter who works where so long as no laws are being broken. The way Tabbers and BV are talking about it you might think KC has been spotted personally handing out packs to kids on the streets of Timbuktu.
Perhaps, he has.
132 - Jack, I didn’t realise you were a moral relativist!
Once again, you put words into my mouth. I am talking about the judgements of First World consumers and voters, not what Third World governments (sadly not many voters, though) choose or choose not to do. You are just having a fit of pique because I’ve said something vaguely controversial about, and don’t share the same passion for, your cause celebre. You make Nuala look positively lukewarm by comparison in your enthusiasm for all things “our Ken”
134.”The way Tabbers and BV are talking about it you might think KC has been spotted personally handing out packs to kids on the streets of Timbuktu”
maybe Tabman spotted him in the streets of Rushcliffe, but he couldn’t say it in an open forum.
133 - I think that sort of thing is sufficiently petty that it would as easily backfire on Labour for bringing it up as it would damage KC.
137 - Perhaps he was in the receiving line, Andrea…
I’ve spotted a strange symmetery about the David Davis and Ken Clarke campaigns.
The former has Derek Conway to repel potential supporters. The latter has John Bercow. The former is supported by The Fugitve. The latter is supported by The Gorgon.
139- so, it must have been a long time ago (if Tabman was still a kid…).
134 - “I’ve said before, in a free country, it shouldn’t matter who works where so long as no laws are being broken.”
But in a free country, whether something should or shouldn’t matter is an issue of individual conscience. A free country means you are free not to buy from or vote for a company or candidate whose (legal) activities you disapprove of.
Anyway, now I really have reached the point of repetition.
134 - Alastair, what about someone who works for a company engaging in an activity in a foreign country that would be illegal in their own country?
140 - I never have liked John Bercow. I think KC would be well advised to keep him on a short lead if he has any official position within KC’s campaign. It boggles the mind to think that he has the biggest majority in the House.
140.”The former has Derek Conway to repel potential supporters. The latter has John Bercow. The former is supported by The Fugitve. The latter is supported by The Gorgon. ”
But Ken has the support of Clare Short too. Now Davis should try to get the support of Galloway!
He’s got Alistair Campbell.
142, 143 - But you two are never going to vote for him anyway, are you? Could it not be that you are making a bit more of this than the average voter is going to do?
Companies are obliged to live up to the letter of the law in the country that they are trading in. I think it’s being rather unrealistic to expect companies that exist to make money to do any more than that, really. I think that is the cold reality at work here.
144 - It was interesting seeing the conversation between Dimbleby and Clarke on Newsnight about Tim Yeo. Dimbleby was clearly just stirring (he does have a little bit of a tendency for that) but it ended up with Clarke having to effectively promise to tell his supporters to shut up!
136 Tabman. “.. you make Nuala look positively Lukewarm ..”
My god is Nuala Christopher Biggins a la Porridge
147 - agreed, but companies are creations of people and don’t exist in a moral vacuum. Which is what I’m saying. ATEOTD many people will conclude that they don’t care. Some won’t, and it will affect their vote. You don’t know how many, and that’s the risk you take if you elect him. And with that, I think I’ve made my point and shall say no more.
147 - I think there is clear polling evidence that it is widely viewed as a negative for Ken. There is no evidence on whether it would particularly impact on people’s votes
149 he was better in the Rocky Horror Show
146. Oh Sean, you’re right. Campbell is enough.
150 - Fair Enough. My view is that the people who are going to let that sort of thing influence their decision are the same people who would never have voted for him anyway. Net Loss = 0.
148. I think it’ll be difficult to shut Widdy up.
155 - Widdy is pure gold among the grassroots. Tory members love her which is why she’s in such demand on the rubber chicken constituency dinner circuit.
If anyone is interested, I’m hosting a dinner in Bushey for Ann Widdecombe on 17th November. I imagine she’ll have a lot to say about the leadership there.
156. I’m afraid to ask what is the rubber chicken constituency dinner circuit.
http://www.political.co.uk/annwiddecombe/images/jrpic01.jpg
158 - Andrea: Just means that she’s a very popular person for constituencies to have around to dinners and other events. She’s guaranteed to draw a good crowd.
At least the rubber chicken circuit doesn’t have to put up with Jeffery Archer barking at them anymore.
158 - Andrea, I assume the origin is that if you go to a big dinner, the food often isn’t perfectly prepared because there’s so much for so many people. Hence your chicken tastes like rubber.
(I am not attacking the Conservative party’s catering more than anyone else’s, of course!)
157 Sean. Ah Bushey, not too far from me, I’ll put in my diary
158 Andrea.
Lively that rubber chicken !!
159.ok, I was afraid those dinners require some rituals involing chicken. I was almost ready to call an animal welfare association
157. any dinner with The Gorgon?
147 - My declaration of interest as a volunteer activist with Amnesty International’s UK Business Advisory Group will not surprise Alastair that his ‘minimalist’ view of international companies’ responsibilities, is not one that I share, particularly in those countries where basic human rights are routinely and egregiously violated. So instinctively, I have some sympathy with Tabman’s arguments.
…But the issue is the degree of risk posed by KC’s BAT connection. My instinct is that the electoral resonance will probably not be significant. However, I also imagine that there will be an awful amount of ‘investigative journalism’ into BAT’s record and activities, and I believe that KC chairs the company’s Ethics and External Affairs Committee. Any embarrassing revelations of legal infractions or dodgy practice could lead to awkward questions being asked. At best, these would be irritating distractions.
So the potential for damage is there. But risk abounds everywhere, and this is one I’m prepared to accept.
PS Can I still be (your ever loyal
) Chancellor?
164 - John: I admire your commitment very much, and ideally I would hope that every company would take pains to live up to certain ethical standards, but I’m afraid that I view this issue in the context of the Tory Leadership race and KC’s position in it, as a bit of a canard. As I have said above, I don’t think it will influence any voters apart from those who would never vote for KC or any other Tory anyway.
You’d be very welcome Jack, but tickets are selling very fast. It’ll be better than rubber chicken, I can assure you.
166 - Thanks. And there we are agreed!!
164 - John, nice to get some support from a (partly) unexpected quarter. To re-iterate (which I know I said I wouldn’t do) I am libertarian about issues concerning consenting adults. I am not where such things concern children or, as you say, blatantly violate basic human rights.
165 - Certainly! And when time comes for us to retire, I’ll ensure BAT has room for us both on the Board of Directors.
John O. I find your comments very sensible.
There have been several cases and investigations into tobacco smuggling in recentyears, some suggesting links with the big firms.
I hope no mud sticks from all of that.
Tories keep talking about who can beat Brown. Is the Tories’s choice of leader likely to have any effect on Labour’s choice of leader?
The problem with Ken is not about fags, it is his record of systematically alienating natural Tory supporters by pushing through unpopular “reforms” when he was in office: the police, the doctors and even the teachers (most of whom are far to the right of their union leaders).
173 - Again, I ask you, did you not take that into account when you chose to support him in 2001? Come on, John… surely you can do better than that!
170 -
As long as the meetings are smoke-free!
Typical that I go away when things start to hot up. I’ve caught a few things this week. I see Tim Yeo lived up to form on newsnight the other night. Dreadful man. Ken Clarke looked good on newsnight last night but amongst an awful panel. David Camerons launch looked impressive but he still sounds rather like he just wants to manage better than Labour.
…but I guess I’ll have to be Robin to your BATman
174. I think it was John T who was a former Clarke’s voter in 2001
176. Woody, but you’re back in time to see Leigh presenting his demands to leadership’s candidates.
175 - I should hope so! I’m not a smoker either.
A variety of single malts will be necessary, however.
So many John’s, so little memory to remember them all…
173 Mike L. The fact that our Ken is prepared to take on the vested interests is a definate plus point in my mind !! Difficult and unpopular decision making is a mark of leadership. If our Ken uses the same combative style as leader I’ll be cheering … for too long NuLab have had an easy ride. Let’s see some blood on the carpet !!
178 - Oh bugger. So it was, Andrea. Sorry about that, JohnL, whoever you are.
180. alex, at least you’re unique!
179 - Its never to late to start AH. All it takes is perseverance and a bit of peer pressure!
181 - Ah Jack, but you’ve got to remember that you’ve got a completely different perspective from the Tory members on here. You want Ken because you think he’s the best man to run the country, they want him because they think he’s the best (only) man to get them into government!
178. My opinion remains much the same. BTW the religous nutter on Question Time last night was fantastic. Never laughed so much for ages.
185 alex. No , I think he’s the best person to lead the Tories. Whether our Ken is the best person to be PM I’ll hold fire on
There’s a lot of competition from Gordon …… oh and Chuck Kennedy and Roger Knappman 
Ask me again in 2009 !!
185 - And the two are entwined in blissful harmony. :).
133: If Ken C was selected and I was in charge of Labour comment, I wouldn’t bother to mention fags: there are certainly people who count this as a negative, but I’d think they already know all about it. I’d merely welcome the Conservative Party’s belated acceptance of strong support for the EU and fair immigration and asylum, in noted contrast to the 2001 and 2005 election platforms, and say we look forward to a period of greater consensus politics. Leave it to Ken to try to deny that, or (much more likely) to cheerfully take the flak if he doesn’t.
can someone please post up a young ish picture of micheal howard please, jack w and andrea any help?
189.”say we look forward to a period of greater consensus politics. Leave it to Ken to try to deny that, or (much more likely) to cheerfully take the flak if he doesn’t. ”
If I would Clarke, I would say that I look forward to a period of greater consensus politics too; then at the first occasion I would take an excuse to avoid it accusing Labour to be the first one which wants to break consensus politics.
189 - If only that line were so easy! On the contrary I think that such a position would open up a clear strategy for KC to attack Labour on the economy and public services, thus silencing the people in the Tory party who believe a ‘Daily Mail’ strategy is the way to go. The only reason they were forced down that road in recent election was that Labour had successfully persuaded people that the Tories couldn’t be trusted with the economy. This would change if the Tories chose someone with the effortless gravitas of KC to go up against TB and GB.
190. Sadly I don’t have any photo of a young Howard (I suppose for young you mean a 20-30 years old MH).
192 - Of course the irony is the Daily Mail may well back Ken for the leadership. If it did it would be interesting to see how the Mail would change its tune depending on where KC stands on certain issues. I do get the feeling that what Paul Dacre would like to see more than anything is TB out of downing street and may well be willing to become a cheer-leader for KC even if it goes against the gut instinct of the Mail.
Max, you return! It was your post at 45 that got us into this BAT business in the first place!
andrea i do i honestly dont believe that we have a picture of him when he was under the age of forty. anyone who can help i will be most impressed.
196. He was 46 in this photo:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=52621964&cdi=0
197
- separated at birth from Alan Partridge!
197. That photo is from the 80’s too. Sadly It’s very little:
http://www.rexfeatures.com/thumb/191275a.jpg
195 - Sorry Tabbers, was out the office enjoying a well earned fag break - and quite frankly I’ve never breathed more easily and I don’t think my clothes have ever smelled so good not to mention how cool and glamourous I looked.
197. He could be Deirdres brother in them glasses. http://www.corrie.net/start/who.html 3rd one down.
198- Tabman, don’t you remember him? you weren’t following politics at the time, were you?
199. The link doesn’t work. I try again:
http://www.rexfeatures.com/thumb/191275a.jpg
If it doesn’t work, you should go to fexfeatures webiste, search “michael howard” in the databse, then click “rifine”, then click on “politician” and finally select “older photos first”. The photos are little, you’ve to register to download them (I think you should pay too).
Here is a mini photo of Michael Howard (looks as if taken at University) courtesy of the Beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3228429.stm
201. woody662, 80’s glasses were very big. Look at Sit Malcolm and Gwyneth:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=2634472&cdi=0
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=3262388&cdi=0
189 - IMO Labour better not put you “in charge of comment”, Nick! I don’t think the Tories are going to object to being “accused” of rejoining Labour on the centre ground, without even having to produce the bones of some policies to prove it
204 or even Eddie the Eagle!
I did find another excellent site: http://www.thebubbleburst.co.uk/index.php
206. We should find old photos of current politicians and see who changes and who is still the same.
Here’s Blunkett in mid-80s:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=51837021&cdi=0
206 Tabman. No mention of Bill Pitt …… mind my suit
208 - I won’t hear a word said against someone who was so successful in annoying David Owen
209 book value. But of course you’d not be supporting the Alliance in those halcyon
days, would you !!
No, sadly I was a little too young to follow things first hand back then… I do remember many of the people on Tabman’s site though.
211.”I do remember many of the people on Tabman’s site though. ”
I’ve never heard about the majority of them. I know only 6 out 41 from the 80’s.
211 book value. My dear fellow are seriously trying to convince the academically minded folk of the site and myself that on vacating the womb you weren’t screeming “umbilical cord here” at the top of your lungs and demanding the use of enviromentally friendly nappies. Come Sir admit all !!
204. Of course, the daddy of all big glasses wearers is former Chinese President Jiang Zemin http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/j/pics/jiang-zemin.jpg
5 In which case you can become very wealthy if your judgement is correct.
6 Fully agreed, I (Charlie bid time !!)was calling this @ 16/1 last weekend and still think there is immense value at 12’s (to trade in and out of, as I don’t think he stands much chance of winning !)
Dark horse though for sure.
Tory Boy is not alone:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/toryleader/story/0,16473,1581952,00.html
Meanwhile it has been discovered that in some Labour local parties agreeing with Clare Short could enough to be expelled.
At a fringe meeting during the conference a woman took the microphone and said she agreed with everything Clare Short has said and then she added ” I won’t give my name or my constituency party,because I’m very worried if word got out, I might be expelled. Our local people are like that.”. Then she bursted in tears.
The countryside alliance didn’t seem welcomed either.
Maybe “expelled” is code for “sectioned”
216. I supposed that woman won’t like to “sectioned” either (”to section” mean “to divide in various parts”, right?)
217 Andrea. No it means detained in a mental health institution …. you know like Printz’s darkened room !
218. Thanks Jack W. I didn’t know. So “section” is a “false friend”.
It’s short for “detained under section x(usually 2 or 3) of the Mental Health act”.
219 Andrea. No that’s what Gordon calls Tony !!
The word “sectioned” has become common usage for to be legally detained in a mental health institution. To “section” has become the verb thereof.
221
220. I believe the lady won’t like it.
And Clare Short won’t like to see her main cheerleader being closed in a mental hospital.
Btw, Clare hasn’t changed much over the years:
http://www.epolitix.com/NR/rdonlyres/648A452C-863C-498C-AAA1-3CD1D408A49F/0/ClareShortCa1983.jpg
Robust response from the Peasant.
I’m trying to get an idea of the likelihood of Fox making the final 2. According to conservativehome.com the number of MPs who have so far publicly declared for each candidate is as follows:
Davis 56
Cameron 16
Clarke 16
Fox 10
Rifkind 5
That leaves 95 undeclared MPs.
In the final MPs round of 3 candidates let’s assume Davis gets about 85 votes (if anyone thinks differently please advise). That would leave 113 votes split between the 2nd and 3rd - ie you would need 57 votes for second place.
Assuming none of Rifkind / Cameron / Clarke declared backers (2 of these would have by then been eliminated) switch to Fox, that would mean that Fox would need 47 of the 95 who have so far not declared (ie almost exactly half).
I know most of Cornerstone have not declared but even allowing for this is it still a very tall order? Do people think he could achieve this?
Re: 224 - you have to bear in mind that not everyone will declare who they are supporting; that some who have declared wont support that candidate; and that some (like me) are floating.
I reckon the true tally at the moment is something like:
Davis 65
Cameron 20
Clarke 27
Fox 12
Rifkind 5
225. Thanks Rik. Based on your numbers it looks even more difficult for Fox - he would need 45 more out of only 69 remaining.
Do you think this is possible?
225. Poor old Sir Malcolm. Do you think KC will make it through to the final round? I still can’t see where the votes are coming from.
Mr Palmer in view of the news this evening regarding the clear abuse and suspension of the law by Ian Blair can you please advise which of the two Blairs is running this country?
Not only in the space of 2 days do we have an 82 year old man detained under anti terrorist laws we now have a police chief that unilaterally decides to suspend laws to suit himself,whilst he may be one of Tonies cronies he is clearly not accountable to anyone.
This is way out of control and your party is now promising even more draconian laws!
229 - some (like me) are floating. An interesting turn of phrase
224 - No.
225 - May one ask whom you are leaning toward at this moment in time, Rik?
231 - I am undecided between Clarke and Davis! Davis I agree with but lacks oooomph. Clarke I disagree with but I cannot ignore what former Tory voters say. So it is ideology or pragmatism. I voted on ideology last time and got IDS!
225, 229. Precisely. We all know your grip with political reality is at times tenuous Rik, but do I really have to be the one who has to point out that you aren’t actually an MP…?
232 - I don’t agree with KC’s views on Europe either, Rik. But he has agreed basically to set those to one side for the duration of his leadership and focus on improving the party’s fortunes. If you take away the European issue, I don’t think there is much that Ken is out of step with the mainstream of the party on. I hope you will make a different choice this time.
john at 228: afraid not. pb.com is for discussing trends, not for arguing about any particular issue - otherwise we’ll fill the threads with debate about everything from Iraq to nuclear power to the price of petrol. If you’re a constituent, do get in touch - otherwise, you might raise it with your own MP.
233 - Chrisco - I dont think the patronising insults are necessary!!!
I have a vote just as every party member does. Also as a former PPC my vote is being courted by various camps. So to a small degree I do have some influence.
Now who is in touch with political reality Chrisco?
Yes. Rik. We all realise that a lot of people are courting you….
However, - changing the subject - what do you (as a recent Tory PPC, almost an MP, and one irretrievably opposed to the policies and practices of the late and generally admired Sir Edward Heath, at one time the Leader of your Party, with which policies I think K Clark(e) generally identifies himself) make of the following, taken from the Guardian (not quite as trustworthy as the Telegraph, so it may not be entirely true):
“A major Conservative party donor today threatened to leave the party if Ken Clarke became leader. Lord Kalms, the millionaire founder of Dixons and a former party treasurer said Mr Clarke would be “totally unacceptable” because of his pro-European views. The 73-year old peer, a David Davis supporter, went as far as saying that if the former chancellor won he would not be “an active member, or, indeed, even a passive member” of the party.”
I feel there are two questions to be asked:
1. Where does the Kalms family come from originally? I suspect they come from Europe…. So why are they now opposed to political and economic relations with Europe? It all seems very odd to me.
2. This sounds to me very much like blackmail. “Do what I want, or I´ll stop funding you….” The problem with the Tory Party today is that it depends totally on a small number of very wealthy backers, and one of them has only to express his slightest whim, and the entire Party falls into line. As you know, I attribute the slight advance of the Tory Party at the last election in great measure to the amount of money that it ws able to throw at individual constituencies. Without its millionnaire backers, the advance would have been nil.
So the latest outburst by Kalms suggests to me that Davi(e)s has to be the winner.
You have said that you are a “floating voter”…. I have long felt that John Redwood is the Tory MP who most closely represents the essence of the Tory Party, but nobody seems to give him any support.
By default, then, how do you feel now? Will you surrender to the Tory Party´s hefty financial backers? Difficult time to be a Tory, I quite admit…
As a footnote, for my savage Tory critics out there, Eton Wick was a defeat for Labour (defending the seat), not for the Lib Dems, who were entering the contest there for the first time in yonks. When I was knocking on doors there, I did not find a single Tory supporter. I simply reported to you (PBC) what I found…..
And now - lest anybody dare to claim that there is a bias in my contributions - for our Very Own Nick…. How about this from no other than Polly Toynbee, also in the Guardian….
“It hasn’t been necessary yet to forcibly eject all [Labour] members from the party: half have already stomped off of their own accord. The hall in Brighton was emptier than for years: two thirds of MPs did not bother to attend and a third of constituencies failed to send any delegates. Regional officers sent favourite sons to fill seats for the rotten boroughs without genuine members. Election campaign reports reveal a party hollowed out, often a near empty shell where even “activists” remain angrily inactive at home.”
Even you, Nick, a loyal Blairite, found an excuse not to go….
True, our Polly is even more disparaging of the Tories in the same article, but the fact surely remains…. Labour is now but a hollow shell of what it was, in thrall to the Dictator.
Roll on the next general election, eh Nick?
237, - Well, if your canvassing technique is similar to your posting technique here, I doubt many people will be surprised ….
“As a footnote, for my savage Tory critics out there, Eton Wick was a defeat for Labour (defending the seat), not for the Lib Dems, who were entering the contest there for the first time in yonks. When I was knocking on doors there, I did not find a single Tory supporter. I simply reported to you (PBC) what I found…..”
Would you say then, that it would be wise for us to discount any posts of this kind from your good self in the future?
Certainly can’t see it being a Davis/Fox final (or a Clarke/Cameron for that matter), in 2001 the ‘left’ (Clarke & Portillo) and ‘right’ (Duncan-Smith) votes were pretty much evenly split with 2/3rds going to the left and 1/3rd to the right. I can’t imagine that even the Tories can have shifted too much to the right in that time.
I imagine an early loss for Rifkind, with most of his (few) votes going to Clarke. Next will almost certainly follow Fox, leaving either Clarke or Cameron to vie with Davis for the spot in the final three. Davis, being the final candidate left from the Right of the party will easily get through, but I find it quite difficult to call between Clarke and Cameron despite my own preference for the former.
Why is Cameron consistently described as being “on the left” of the Tory Party?
I think the survey should have included ability to unite the party. Also think a 1-10 scale is too subjective, better just to rank the candidates in order or have a narrower band, say 1-5.
john13: As I’ve said before, I had good personal reasons not to go even though I’d booked, which I’m sure you’ll accept that I don’t need to go into here as they’re non-political. I admit that I’m not a big fan of conferences, though - I’ve been to five and there is a certain sameness about them that made the decision not to go this year not very painful.
The party? It’s in middling shape - obviously nowhere near its “Get the Tories out at last!” peak of 1997, but also not the shell that you and Polly depict. I had more helpers (around 100) in Broxtowe in 2005 than in 2001, after a slow start, and last week we recruited 120 new paid-up members at the Nottingham University Labour stand in freshers’ week, which is the largest haul for a long time.
Re 224. The numbers are still ticking up on conservativehome.com. The position re the number of MPs who have publicly declared for each candidate is now:
Davis 57
Clarke 18
Cameron 16
Fox 10
Rifkind 5
Undeclared 92
I’m told that Shepway has now become the 61st local authority without any Labour representation altogether.
245 Mike L
Re your earlier question on Fox making the final.
Absolutely yes it’s possible.
With the support of the Cornerstone Group plus the tactical support of excess Davis pledges it is very possible.
I’ve asked about five times now and am still waiting for an answer to two pretty simple questions.
1/Where is Clarke’s Parliamenatry support going to come from ?
2/ Should he get to the membership and be selected, how can he possible lead a Parliamentary Party when he is ‘outgunned’ (say)
138 -60 ?
It’s utter madness….and the imminent row over something as seemingly irrelevent as Austria’s problem with Turkey ought surely to be ringing major league alarm bells with anyone contemplating voting for him.
One hint or mention of Europe and we will be rudderless
247. I said a few days ago that the rules are obviously crazy If an MP has the support of a majority of MPs but loses the election he could get his supporters to call for a vote of no confidence in the new leader the very next day and remove the new leader immediately.
The rules for the election, coupled with the rules for removal are intellectually totally incoherent.
I still think the rules should be changed NEXT WEEK to a compromise of a 50% MPs : 50% members electoral college for the final.
That way if an MP only has the support of 60 MPs as per your example it is almost impossible that they would win the electoral college.
242: Perhaps not to the left as we know it, but certainly to the left of Davis and Fox. Especially with regards to the ‘modernising’ aspect, anyway.
247: I imagine that Clarke’s parliamentary support is going to come from anyone who can’t stomach the thought of Davis getting the job, and I imagine that will consist of quite a lot of MPs if it comes down to either Clarke or Someone Else facing off against Davis in a nationwide ballot…
248 - the other problem with the current situation is that it never requires a majority of MPs to cast a vote for the winner. It is much easier, morally, to plot against and try to remove someone who you haven’t personally cast a vote for. Your 50:50 electoral college between the final two seems so obvious it’s ridiculous that it hasn’t been implemented. The present system operates under the pretence that the leader might have got a majority if they’d had a final round of voting rather than make it explicit if say there is a 49%:51% split. But if they wouldn’t have got a majority then everyone really knows it.
Just when I thought I was finally spelling Davis right, the BBC confuse me http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/4293082.stm
252. Thanks to BBC’s always useful webiste, we have now discovered that we’ve wasted our times talking about the chances of David Davis when the real frontrunner is David Davies
I just been looking at the voting figures from last time to see if it helps who is going to come second this time. Of the public supporters last time for the final round, that are still in parliament, the breakdown with current pledges is as follows.( NYD - Not yet declared )
Ken Clarke 2001 (28) - Now DD 7, KC 14, DC 2, LF 1, MR 0, NYD 4
Portillo 2001 (43) - Now DD 17, KC 4, DC 9, LF 3, MR 0, NYD 10
IDS 2001 (38) - Now DD 13, KC 0, DC 0, LF 3, MR 0, NYD 22
Did not declare 2001 (35) - Now DD 11, KC 0, DC 1, LF 0, MR 3, NYD 20
New Intake - DD 18, KC 0, DC 4, LF 3, MR 2, NYD 20
So the majority of voters to declare are from former IDS supporters and the relatively right-wing new intake where Ken has yet to get a single pledge. Ken has lost 10 of the 28 still in parliament who voted for him last time, and only gained 4 from Portillo voters.
So who can get these votes and take second place ?
John T, interesting break down…..
Goes to underline my oft asked but yet to be answered question :
Where are KC’s Parliamentary votes going to come from to get him
into the ‘final’ ?
255- if the 22 former IDS supporters NYD will back DD and not Fox, Clarke could make the final round.
256 - The would take DD to 88, Clarke would still need 56 votes. I just can’t see where they are coming from.
257. It depends on who will be eliminated first (after Sir Malcolm): Cameron or Fox.
If Cameron goes out before Fox, will his supporters back Davis, Fox or Clarke?
But all this will look different on Wednesday evening because the conference will totally set the backcloth. How will their speeches be received by the delagates and how will all this be covered in the media?
This is hard to predict. Rifkind is on his own tomorrow. On Tuesday it’s Cameron and Clarke while Wednesday sees Davis and Fox at the rostrum. Is it best to be on early or later.
Thank you Conservatives for giving us so much pleasure.
258 - They are mixed bag - Sir John Butterfield, Boris Johnson and Nicholas Soames backed Clarke last time, when the vote went to members. Others like Letwin backed IDS at that stage.
260- If Cameron is out before Clarke and his supporters will go for Clarke and not Fox, he still could get in the final two.
All those numbers and tory MPs are giving me an headache
256 Andrea, notwithstanding my own preference of DD, I don’t pretend for a minute to to know any better than anyone else on this board
what the final outcome, cast in a private ballot will be.
Despite what was said on TV this AM, KC’s ability to get to 67 votes has got to be in extreme doubt (to put it mildly !)
Every vote he falls short of that surely leaves him increasingly exposed to tactical voting (be it right, fair, moral or just part of the art/deal with it.)
All things considered, I’m increasing (objectively) emboldened that Foxy is going to take him down and meet DD in the final!
Still think he will come significantly second even if he does so, but either way it would be a very good pay day.
Cameron and his voters are the only imponderables in my vision.
Assuming Rifkind will do the decent thing (to save his self respect - sorry Nuala !) and drop out before hand and that his votes cross largely over to KC, were Cameron and his votes to transfer as a block to KC it would make the maths tighter.
I just don’t sense from what I’ve seen and heard that he’s leaning that way though, quite the reverse, I sense he is closer to DD
It could leave KC needing a huge % of the NYD’s that I just can’t envisage materialising.
261 - Overall I would think that most of DC’s support would got to DD. This might be KC’s best hope of making the final two with DD stacking up a huge vote and therefore lowering the target to finish second - but would members back a candidate who was overwhelming the second choice of MPs.
262 - It’s not going to be pretty if you are right.
259 Mike, I honestly don’t think the speeches will make any difference whatsoever.
It will give the media lots to burble about, but I really don’t know of many people who haven’t made up their minds already.
I would contend that even most of the (so called) NYD’s have probably done so and are merely holding off for a tactical timing endorsement for their chosen candidate around their key note speeches, or are haggling for roles in the would be shadow cabinet.
[264] And when was the last “pretty” election for a Tory leader (MH’s coronation apart)?
Re 247, surprised to hear there are 61 Councils without Labour representation; however, I do know that there are 33 without any Tories, including most important cities!
264 - I’m really not sure, you know. Probably about the same time the last consequential election for Liberal leader was held.
264 AHM, I can see that and likewise hope there is no skulldugery.
Even though we will never agree on the preferred choice for leader I hope we can agree that this whole blood* process has been a self inflicted (and easily predicted) debacle and that whatever system is used in the future is hammered out ASAP afterwards.
The real irony is that a large minority of those who voted against system change did so because they thought it was a double lock on stopping KC.
Now it offers his best chance of coming through to win.
I despair !
Oh no you don’t, Tory Boy. I’ve said from the outset that I bear Davis no ill will and will fall in line behind him if he becomes leader and will work as hard to see him succeed as I have for every Conservative leader since Eden. You don’t see me on here making statements to the effect that Davis should be knocked out in the penultimate round to preven him winning because I happen to think that he isn’t the best candidate on offer.
If Clarke loses the final ballot of members, then the democratic will of the party will be done, but for him not even to reach that point despite all the evidence seen in the polls, the press and even comments made on fora such as these that suggest he is the wider public’s favourite will only reinforce the image that we aren’t listening, continue to be out of touch and are not has changing.
270 A bit of a spit there AHM !
Should you choose to reread my postings I have never made :
“statements to the effect that (Clarke) should be knocked out in the penultimate round to preven him winning because I happen to think that he isn’t the best candidate on offer”.
But have merely pointed out it could (increasingly) well happen and
have endeavoured to understand other people views and gain their insight to increase my betting positions ( the site is called Political betting not Political Political (though I do love the debates)
Easy Tiger !
[268] There’s never been one - Lloyd George staged a successful putsch whilst Asquith and all his predecessors “emerged” just as Tory leaders used to
271 - With great respect, I think you should re-read some of your own postings over the past fortnight or so. Your dislike of Clarke is palpable. But you carry on as you like, Tiger. I’m quite sure what I am talking about is clear to other readers.
A method that worked rather well in it’s day, really. Emergence, that is, not the putsch.
273 You are missing the point.
Certainly I dislike Clarke intensely, no issue with that.
I think he will split the party in two (though cede it might take a couple of years and there might well be a short term Electoral bounce) if he is sucessful.
Around the specific point of tactical voting however I have never endorsed it being used, merely discussed its increasing possibility.
That’s why I’ve also asked untold times :
“Where are KC’s Parliamentary votes going to come from ?”
Perhaps you can help me with that ?
275 - From Conservative MPs perhaps?
As I don’t have a crystal ball, I think that is about the most informed and intelligent commentary that one can make on a ballot which is private and where there is undoubtedly all sorts of conniving and plotting going on behind the scenes that none of us on here are privy to. Why don’t we just wait for the results of the first vote and then we’ll be in a much better position to have this sort of debate?
From Conservative MP’s !! Enough said.
275 - AHM claims to be against tactical voting but seems to be of the opinion that MPs who don’t support Clarke should vote (tactically?)for him so that the members have the chance to vote for him. The fundamental point it seems to me is that if Clarke has no support among MPs, in fact if he has a majority who are actively hostile to him then for him to somehow get into the final round and for members to vote for him would be to condemn the Tory Party to several more years of disunity just when they had thought they had cracked the problem.
276 - if you want to bet on these things (which is the point of the site after all!) you can’t just leave it in the lap of the gods.
I would rather you didn’t put words into my mouth, Alex.
I’ve said that MPs should vote for the candidate they want to win, and not engage in tactical voting to stop somebody else. The talk has all been of tactical voting AGAINST Clarke. According to Conservative Home, Clarke is placed second in terms of the number of endorsements from MPs to date, so it is rather misleading of you to argue that he has ‘no support’ among MPs. My point has always been that about half of the Parliamentary Party has yet to declare support for any of the candidates and that any predictions as far as the final round goes are virtually meaningless at this time, and it is complicated further by the fact that the ballot is private and you cannot predict any of these votes with certainty.
BUT, I think those undeclared members ought to be mindful of what the wider electorate want as well. Taking note of public opinion and listening to it is one of those compromises we are going to have to make to return to power. Blair is a classic example of this - he has never been the darling of the Labour grassroots, but he’s won them three big majorities on the trot. A wise warrior learns from the tactics of his opponent.
279 - I see. And how much have you got down?
Apologies AHM. But you can still make a damn good effort.
BTW I didn’t say “Clarke has no support among MPs”. I said “if Clarke has no support among MPs…”. It was a hypothetical point.
279 Alex, pray expand kind Sir ?
If you’re asking whether I’m walking as well as talking the answer in yes !!
I’m indecently long of DD & LF and have laid DC.
My only uncertainty (other than DC winning - but I’m happy to take a chance and run that leg as I just can’t see it)is whether I should take a cover bet out on Clarke if he starts to slide in the betting.
Would possibly be the wrong thing to do at this stage though I guess as it would be a pretty clear indicator (were it to happen !!) that the game was probably up !?
Just really looking
Absolutely Alex - a fool’s errand, but by all means, have at it.
The thing that strikes me about you, Alex, is that I don’t think the we’ll ever be able to please you. You don’t like Clarke because he’s past it, if Davis wins I’m sure the ink wills scarcely be dry on the ballots before you find a problem with him too…
283 - I was supporting you against AHM’s argument that it wasn’t worth bothering because it’s a private ballot etc etc.
Sorry Alex, completely misread that thread…
Probably a good time to sign off and say Goodnight !
Regards
284 - AHM not everything I write is my personal opinion. I get the impression that you see every post through the prism of a political opponent or supporter of another candidate (opponent of your own) trying to get one over on you.
[283] You’ve got to admire anyone who uses the phrase “indecently long” on a site frequented by Andrea and Jack W….
AHM - In general i know it’s not worth arguing against you over your support of Clarke (even if i disagree with you). I may in a moment of weakness probe a bit further (eg. on such issues whether you are really sure that Clarke would be such a good thing with a smallish minority of parliamentary support) but it still doesn’t change minds.
There is, however, a difference when posts are motivated by the predictive game ie. trying to work out what will happen not what should happen. I think that is a great deal of fun and it should be able to discuss such things without turning it into a political argument
288.Innocent Abroad, you know what you’re risking at the moment……
(actually I’m not sure I’ve understood your comment)
287 - Alex: I’ve you read my previous posts, you will see that I have stated that I am quite prepared to be magnanimous about the result (whatever it may be) and work for the good of the party. No, I really don’t see things through the prism you are suggesting.
Unlike you (an admitted floating voter already considering the Lib Dems for next time), I have a bit more invested in the outcome of this contest - it’s not all just an amusing political sideshow to me. The future of an organisation that I have devoted a small part of my life to, and that I have believed profoundly in for the past half century may very well hang in the balance. You will have to excuse me if I come over rather passionate at times - it is because I am sincerely so.
289 - I’ll grant you that, Alex, but please remember that it was Tory Boy that I originally took issue with and I do believe that his motives were/are slightly different than yours.
Having said all that, I still personally don’t see the point in trying to predict the results of a private ballot of such a select group of individuals. It’s plain for all to see that Davis is going to top the ballot, it’s second place that is in question and that is even harder/more futile in trying to predict.
292 - I think Tory Boy’s motives are perfectly summed up in his post 283. He just wants to know if it is necessary for him to cover his invested money by backing Clarke.
292 - but don’t you agree it makes a big difference whether Davis gets 110 votes or 70 (because the members will not want to go against the overwhelming wishes of the MPs)? And that the extent of his support will make a big difference to who comes second (the more support he draws from eg. the right of the party, the less votes the other candidates have to attract)
293 - You and I will have to agree to differ on that.
294 - I don’t know that the margin the top contender gets among MPs will necessarily have any affect at all. It quite possibly could, but like MPs, I would hope members will vote their minds and not just act as trained seals for the Parliamentary Party. What is the point of the wider party having a vote if they are only expected to act as a rubber stamp for MPs? What makes you think that Members will just do what MPs want? Clarke got more votes among the Parliamentary Party in 2001 and that didn’t seem to matter much to the party in the country.
In my conversations with fellow members, I have the very clear impression that there has been a marked change in attitude toward Ken Clarke since 2001 and winning has become more important than somebody who is more ideaologically pure (which is a bit misleading anyway considering that the only major issue that Clarke is out of step with the mainstream of the party on is Europe and even that is less of a factor now).
Now, just to clarify - that is by no means a prediction of the outcome - I don’t know what is going to happen any more than anyone else, but there is certainly an openness to KC and a willingness to consider him among people who wouldn’t have dreamt of it 4 years ago. I think that is very significant indeed.
254. Sorry to nitpick but this analysis does not appear to quite add up.
The current position is Davis 66, Clarke 18, Cameron 16, Fox 10, Rifkind 5.
So there are 83 not yet declared.
The analysis at post 254 has 76 not yet declared.
Interesting aspect of the analysis at 254 is that most of the MPs who did not declare in 2001 must have gone for Clarke:
2001 result:
Clarke 59 - 28 declared = 31 who did not declare
Portillo 53 - 43 declared = 10 who did not declare
IDS 54 - 38 declared = 16 who did not declare
Of the 31+10+16 = 57 who did not declare in 2001 some have of course retired (I don’t know how many). However even allowing for this it looks like people who did not declare in 2001 and are still MPs are likely to be more inclined to vote for Clarke.
Tory Boy at 262 says where can Clarke’s votes come from? I would equally ask where do the votes for Fox to come second come from?
Assuming Davis wins the final round of voting with 85 votes then you need 57 to come second.
Assuming Rifkind and Cameron are knocked out and none of their votes go to Fox then:
Fox will need 47 of the 83 yet to declare. This seems a lot.
Can anyone with good knowledge go through these 83 names and work out their likelihood to vote for Fox?
Clearly the 22 IDS NYD in 2001 identified at post 254 would be strong possibilites but can he get 47 out of the 83?
I think there is a fundamental difference between Clarke in 2001 getting (in the final round) 59 votes (out of 165) and someone this time (obviously Davis) getting over half the votes.
It has become the received wisdom now that Tory members voted for IDS in 2001 because of Clarke’s views on Europe. That may have been true for many but i doubt that was actually true for everyone. What terrified many of the more thoughtful was the possibility that the Parliamentary Tory Party could implode as it did at the end of the Major Government, just when they thought Hague had found a formula (on Europe) to unite them. And IMO they were right. Choosing IDS was the only decision they could make. The MPs had saddled them with a choice between “no progress” and “implosion”. The most common complaint, I’m sure you’d agree, among Tory Party members over the last 10 years, is that the MPs refuse to stop squabbling among themselves and direct their fire on the Government. How would this complaint and desire fit in with rejecting a clear choice of MPs? (and again, I stress, this is still a hypothetical situation).
297 - I suppose you have to factor in the (unknown) no. of final round Clarke voters who had been “leant” their votes by IDS.
295 AHM. You say what is the point of the members vote if it is just a rubber stamp?
This is a fair question but the point is that in the recent YouGov poll the clear majority of members thought that MPs SHOULD make the decision as to the choice of leader.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, if members think this and they see that Davis is the clear choice of MPs then they are bound to be stongly influenced to vote for Davis.
298 - I couldn’t disagree more, Alex. I think that I am a bit better placed to speak to the views of Tory members than you are, and in the vast majority of cases I am aware of, Clarke’s views on Europe were the problem. IDS was a mistake that should never have been made and I think we would have been in a very different position today if it hadn’t.
The election of Ken Clarke as leader is not going to lead to the ‘implosion’ of the Tory Party and if I thought there was the slightest chance that it could I would never support him. There will be those who will be disappointed if he wins, undoubtedly, just as there will be whomever wins. Now that the issue of Europe has more or less been lanced, there is no reason that KC couldn’t unite the party under his leadership and use his ability to push propel it forward. Is electing Clarke a risk? Yes. But after three horrible defeats and another one looming unless some drastic change is made, I think we have little choice if we are serious about making real progress next time.
300 - You may very well be right, and I voted in favour of returning the final say to MPs because I think the entire process is too cumbersome and slow. My preference would have been for an electoral college which sadly wasn’t on offer this time.
Having said that, Now that I have retained my vote, I will be using it to vote for the person I think should be elected leader and not what another group of individuals think. Others are free to vote as they wish, as is there prerogative, but I think it’s a farce otherwise.
302. Everyone seems to agree that an Electoral College is the answer - I still think this should be introduced immediately for this election.
If it was, members may feel more free to vote for who they personally want rather than who MPs want as they would be voting in the knowledge that MPs’ views were being taken account of in the Electoral College.
302 - ‘As is their prerogative’, rather. I really should be off. I’m off to Blackpool first thing in the morning. Should be back on Thursday with a much better feel for what is going to happen, hopefully.
303. If the total votes got by the two finalists aren’t be revealed, it would be easier for party members to decide with their heads and not voting according to what MPs have voted.
304. Have a good time at the conference, A H Matlock!
297 - I worked it out quite quickly so I’m happy for you to help. Send your email to me@johntravis.co.uk and I’ll send you my list and you can tell me where I went wrong.
Some IDS supporters were reported to vote for Clarke last time.
306. John and I have now sorted this. In Post 254 the number for New Intake NYD should be 27.
htxjmlfkjgq…
assiusfo nnucjztw meenndg rcxclegknno …
btnxqocwpq…
dffdwpza jtjgxrtmfmg qyiihceoc cwifnongym …