2004 Democratic Primary

[ABD]

Hello!  This is my first post.  I was put on to Dave's presidential website some time ago...but only now have I signed up.  Dave congrats on a great web site.

I worked at in the Conservative Research Department, and the press office there, until quite recently, and so I am familiar with almost all of the comings and goings of shadow ministers and staff.  May I offer then a few comments on the recent Tory changes, and the prospect of the Lib Dems becoming the official Opposition?

The reason the Liberal Democrat vote in the UK has been artificially high in recent times was, sadly, the perception of drift under IDS - and this has been shown to be the case in recent polls since Howard has become leader.  Lib Dem support has dropped by around 8 points (according to ICM I think).

A Tory landslide this does not make, and there is a long way to go - but it does show that the idea that the Tories are to become party #3 is about as credible as the leadership credentials of Charlie Kennedy, Carol Moseley-Braun or Carmen Lawerence!

The key to this is that what the Tories have lacked for a decade, need for any revival to occur, and now appear to have regained - is an ethos of professionalism.  Howard, Fox and Saatchi will whip Westminster into shape and get them back into the habit of success again.

I wouldn't like to bet the outcome of a by-election in an upper middle class Lib Dem seat in the south in say, six months to twelve months time.  If such a byelection took place, and such a vote takes place, and the Tories win, then we'll know it's really Game On.

Look forward to getting to know you on this forum!

ABD

[ABD]

OK, as an alumnii of Conservative Central Office, and as you Poms say, a political 'anorak', I'm going to predict the Tories will have a solid nett gain of seats.  How many, I think is too early to say.  We don't know how the leadership change will go down with the people that REALLY matter if there is to be a Tory revival - getting those that voted Tory in 1992 to either
(a) come out to vote again, or
(b) come back to the Tories from the Lib Dems or Labour.
Not to mention how the campaign pans out, etc etc....

However, I will make one bold prediction on the outcome of the 2005 general election - in Scotland.  My understanding is that a redistribution of boundaries is due but won't be in place for the next general election.  In which case there'll still be 72 or so seats up for grabs.  At the moment they have one - Galloway and Upper Nithsdale.  I think they will hold that, and gain at least four more.  Ayr, Perth, Edinburgh Pentlands, and Dumfries.  I base this on a combination of the results of the Scottish vote in May, the quality of the Tory machine in those seats and the demographic features of those seats.

I'll make a more solid prediction closer to the time. : )

ABD

[ABD]

If the Labour Party choose anyone other than Tony Blair it means they will have rediscovered their taste for doing anything other than being electable.  Which would delight me.

Clare Short is like Carmen Lawrence in Australia - the sort of MP that tries to console themselves that life after Cabinet isn't that bad if you can wrap yourselves up in leftish moral vanity.

And Bryant?  Not now, I don't think.....

[ABD]

To be honest there were only three candidates that were serious - Clarke, Howard and Davis.  People like Michael Ancram (future Michael Lothians!) stood to try and knock David Davis out of any possible two-horse ballot for the membership.

I would have voted here on the poll for Howard but I haven't spent enough time on this site yet to work out how to click on the polling button (will do so when I get home from work tonight perhaps).

[ABD]

Labour would be unwise to remove Tony Blair.  The UK is essentially a small-c conservative country.  Blair is the face of Labour acceptability and electability.  Remove Blair and Labour will make it that much harder for itself.

Brown may give the Labour faithful and assorted lefties a collective feelgood factor but that won't win elections.  That's not to say Brown can't win elections - but it's not a good enough reason to simply replace Blair with Brown.




 

[ABD]

Labour would be unwise to remove Tony Blair.  The UK is essentially a small-c conservative country.  Blair is the face of Labour acceptability and electability.  Remove Blair and Labour will make it that much harder for itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er....I've been called far worse than a "rightist" (and although I am a tribal party "true believer", I would definitely describe myself as centre-right in Australian politics, and saw myself as a fairly moderate  Tory in the UK).  "Leftie" ain't exactly a damning term.  And  I seem to recall a few people looking benignly on Mark Latham's fairly bald statements, listed on this site shortly after he became leader.... about how Aussies are outspoken in a way only we can be.... : )

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

[ABD]

I agree, everything points to another Labour win in 2005. Labour are unpopular, but not so unpopular that people would kick them out in favour of the most hated politician of the 1990's! (Howard).

Indeed.  Remember though, that we still don't know who Michael Howard will face at the next general election (I remain a dissenter here on the electoral appeal of Gordon Brown), and you're right - Howard has a big task ahead of him.  But don't forget, his namesake here in Australia was the deeply (politically) unsexy "Mr 16%" during the '80s... and John Howard will now probably finish as Australia's second longest serving PM when he goes (he's already no.3).

Possible message?  The souffle can rise twice.

Or maybe not. : )

[ABD]

"Leftie" ain't exactly a damning term.

Sorry, I'll admit I am quite sensitive about the term. It just reminds me of when The Sun were at their most slanderous. More of a connotation thing.

Cool, no worries mate.  : )

[ABD]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a card carrying Tory, can you please explain why the Tory party did not elect Ken Clarke as leader? If they had I'm sure Blair would be looking at a 15% lag in the polls rather than a 5% lead! Anyone would think they like losing elections!!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose there's the obvious one - Europe - but in truth I think there was a deeper one of which Europe was merely a symptom.  I'm not sure Clarke wanted the leadership to be a two-way conversation with the membership.  I think he saw it as him telling everyone what they were to believe and do, regardless of anyone else's views, and the members didn't like that idea much.  It's not much of a strategy when the electorate you have to convince is your own party membership!  

Who knows what would have happened if he had projected more of an image of wanting to connect with the membership more.

Some of Clarke's reported comments since 2001 have been interesting - I'm not sure he would have enjoyed being Opposition leader at all, actually.  And if he'd really wanted it in 2002-3, I think he would have expressed his views on Iraq differently.  I don't think he's demonstrated a hunger for the role.