UK: Preferred Prime Minister

[Cassius]

Farrago of course.

@Oldies, If the Tories have kept Cameron for so long they'd look pretty desperate kicking him out now.

I do think Tories are rather ungrateful to dear Cammers. You'd think after three dud leaders they'd feel kind of happy about him, rather than throwing their toys out the pram because he endorsed a few cuddly social liberal ideas.

Hague and Howard (not so much Duncan Smith but oh well) were only 'dud' leaders because of the extremely poor position that the Conservative Party was in during the mid to late 90's and early 2000's. I doubt that anybody could have won the 2001 general election for the Tories, and even the 2005 general election seems like a bit of a longshot. If Cameron had, for whatever reason, been leading the Conservative Party into either election I doubt that he would have been able to do considerably better.

Tories are ungrateful to Cameron because he essentially promised the party that it could win a majority if it only adopted all this 'modernisation' BS. Well, he cocked that up a bit didn't he? Failing to win a majority against a highly unpopular government led by a highly unpopular PM (whether that unpopularity was deserved is of course your opinion), and instead was forced into a coalition with the Liberal bloody Democrats, who, whilst not having done very well at putting their own agenda, such as it was, into effect when in office, have done a very good job at stymying elements of the Conservative agenda.

Cameron promised everything and delivered pretty much bugger all. He's a failure.

[Cassius]

Farrago of course.

@Oldies, If the Tories have kept Cameron for so long they'd look pretty desperate kicking him out now.

I do think Tories are rather ungrateful to dear Cammers. You'd think after three dud leaders they'd feel kind of happy about him, rather than throwing their toys out the pram because he endorsed a few cuddly social liberal ideas.

Hague and Howard (not so much Duncan Smith but oh well) were only 'dud' leaders because of the extremely poor position that the Conservative Party was in during the mid to late 90's and early 2000's. I doubt that anybody could have won the 2001 general election for the Tories, and even the 2005 general election seems like a bit of a longshot. If Cameron had, for whatever reason, been leading the Conservative Party into either election I doubt that he would have been able to do considerably better.

Tories are ungrateful to Cameron because he essentially promised the party that it could win a majority if it only adopted all this 'modernisation' BS. Well, he cocked that up a bit didn't he? Failing to win a majority against a highly unpopular government led by a highly unpopular PM (whether that unpopularity was deserved is of course your opinion), and instead was forced into a coalition with the Liberal bloody Democrats, who, whilst not having done very well at putting their own agenda, such as it was, into effect when in office, have done a very good job at stymying elements of the Conservative agenda.

Cameron promised everything and delivered pretty much bugger all. He's a failure.

That's the kind of logic that Labour left-wingers used to complain that since Blair would have won in 1997 anyway the modernisation was irrelevant. Leaving aside the fact that it's a silly proposition - who knows how things would have went? - it kind of misses  the point to only think of such a process as an electoral tool. The Tories still being not trusted isn't really Cameron's fault, unless you somehow think that Howard or whoever could have somehow won a majority.

Hague was absolutely a dud. Maybe a different leader wouldn't have done considerably better but that doesn't change the fact that his tenure was farcical. The less said about Michael "Immigrants!" Howard the better.

I'm not saying, neccessarily (and perhaps I should've made this clear) that any form of 'modernisation' was unneccessary, but I do believe that the way Cameron went about it (especially when he was in opposition, but even more recently with the whole gay marriage farce) was needlessly provocative and ultimately counter-productive, in the sense that it alienated a large number of the party's traditional supporters for comparatively little electoral gain. Many of those alianted people eventually found somewhere else to go - UKIP. Cameron may have won over a few 'centrist' voters, but at the same time has driven off a decent number of Tory stalwarts, thus leaving the party stuck at around 30% of the vote. Its all very well talking about needing to broaden a party's base of support, but if your attempts to do so infuriate and alienate much of the existing base, it has to be questioned as to whether those actions are correct.

Also of course, if we're comparing this to the criticism of Blair by the Labour left, it should be remembered that Blair delivered the electoral goods for his party, something that Cameron has failed to do after nearly a decade at the helm of the Conservative party. I think its perfectly reasonable to argue that Cameron's attempt at modernisation has been a failure.