Michael Howard

[© tweed]

Well....

[English]

He will probably help the Tories. Not enough to help them win the next election though. He has a lot more charisma than Hague and IDS which will probably play well with some people. Despite this he is too right wing to appeal to the young profs and liberal middle classes who voted overwhelmingly for Labour in 2001/1997.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Howard is:

A) on the Lib Dem hit list
B) associated with the "old regime"
C) from everywhere... so from no-where
D) a right wing prat

[ABD]

Howard:

(a) has already punctured the Liberal Democrat vote by around 8 points according to the polls, probably reducing if not immediately eliminating the plausibility of further Lib dem gains in the South;
(b) has got the necessary "mongrel" in him to put pressure on the Government where it matters;
(c) recognises what needs to be done to the Tory party internally to reorganise itself to win back government;
(d) is certainly a social conservative, but recognises that to win the Tories need a "broad church" approach in order to maximise their vote share
(e) does have some baggage, but is also a "big beast" that brings with him experience and gravitas.

In addition I would say that:
1. the people who usually want a more socially liberal leader for a centre-right party (and cite the lack of one as a reason not to vote for a centre-right party) usually wouldn't vote for such a party even if the leader WAS socially liberal.   Why should a party head the insistent advice of people who are likely to support its opponents?  Take the advice of people who condemn Howard to electoral defeat for being socially conservative, with a grain of salt!
2. There is a big, big difference between the "centre ground" on a ideological map, and the "mainstream" where the votes are.  I agree Howard is relatively uninterested in the "centre ground" -- he will look to the "mainstream".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh God...

Not that "silent majority" crap...

[Canadian observer]

Is it me or Howard looks like Howard ?

[English]

Howard:

(a) has already punctured the Liberal Democrat vote by around 8 points according to the polls, probably reducing if not immediately eliminating the plausibility of further Lib dem gains in the South;
(b) has got the necessary "mongrel" in him to put pressure on the Government where it matters;
(c) recognises what needs to be done to the Tory party internally to reorganise itself to win back government;
(d) is certainly a social conservative, but recognises that to win the Tories need a "broad church" approach in order to maximise their vote share
(e) does have some baggage, but is also a "big beast" that brings with him experience and gravitas.

In addition I would say that:
1. the people who usually want a more socially liberal leader for a centre-right party (and cite the lack of one as a reason not to vote for a centre-right party) usually wouldn't vote for such a party even if the leader WAS socially liberal.   Why should a party head the insistent advice of people who are likely to support its opponents?  Take the advice of people who condemn Howard to electoral defeat for being socially conservative, with a grain of salt!
2. There is a big, big difference between the "centre ground" on a ideological map, and the "mainstream" where the votes are.  I agree Howard is relatively uninterested in the "centre ground" -- he will look to the "mainstream".

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he can eliminate LD gains in the south. LD and Labour recently have tended to work together to keep out the Tories, this means even if the tories increase their vote share they could still LOSE seats. The LD and Labour are idealogically very similar and neither could bare the thought of Howard in power.
The recent Tory gains in the polls are modest at best, however for an unpopular Labour party halfway through it's term you should expect the Tories to be 20% ahead, not neck and neck!! History shows the incumbant government ALWAYS claws back at least 5% on their performance right before an election. On present poll ratings this would put Labour in the low 40's%, an easy win. Failing a disaster Labour will win again, albeit with a slashed majority of maybe 50 seats.

[ABD]

Oh God...

Not that "silent majority" crap...

Not in the sense that the term is usually used, in a "moral majority" sense...

But it is true, given that turnout in Australia is so high (95%) that governments come and go because of the voting preferences of people that aren't ordinarily politically active.

Right now all state governments are Labor, so these people are registering their vote in that direction too.

[ABD]

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he can eliminate LD gains in the south. LD and Labour recently have tended to work together to keep out the Tories, this means even if the tories increase their vote share they could still LOSE seats. The LD and Labour are idealogically very similar and neither could bare the thought of Howard in power.
The recent Tory gains in the polls are modest at best, however for an unpopular Labour party halfway through it's term you should expect the Tories to be 20% ahead, not neck and neck!! History shows the incumbant government ALWAYS claws back at least 5% on their performance right before an election. On present poll ratings this would put Labour in the low 40's%, an easy win. Failing a disaster Labour will win again, albeit with a slashed majority of maybe 50 seats.

Everything you say I agree with.  I'm not suggesting tactical voting will disappear, although I think we've seen the worst of it as disillusionment with New Labour grows - particularly amongst idealistic Lib Dems.

And I agree that the polls now don't point to a Tory win.  I would argue the polls suggest that some people now are prepared to at least listen to Howard for now, as opposed to switching off to IDS or Hague.

Provided the Tories are well-organised and professional, the work they do will result in the electoral pendulum beginning to move their way.  Not all the way straight away, but nonetheless in that direction....

Just think!  You're getting closer to another Conservative government in Britain!  Bet you're loving that idea.... : )

ABD

[English]

I don't really realish higher unemployment no. Every conservative government in history has been marked by long periods of high unemployment, often with +3 million in the dole queue! Labour has given the UK nearly full employment, about the lowest interest rates in history and consistently low inflation. Since 1997 we've also overtaken Italy and France to become the 4th largest economy in the world. I think, economically they've done rather well.
I'm sure we would pay lower tax under the Tories, but that would be at the expense of jobs and higher inflation. I am also in favour of joining the Euro as it would be good for UK business and result in higher foreign investment. The Tories would never join the Euro, merely because 90% of them are Xenophobes who care more about having the Queen's head on bank notes than helping business.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

ABD... The pendulam broke down when the Gang of Four left Labour in the early '80's.

Also please note that some of the most socially conservative areas of the U.K really would vote for a yellow dog over a Tory.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is it me or Howard looks like Howard ?

Bit like Kerry and Mulrony...

[English]

ABD... The pendulam broke down when the Gang of Four left Labour in the early '80's.

Also please note that some of the most socially conservative areas of the U.K really would vote for a yellow dog over a Tory.

Very true. Areas like the South Wales Valleys and Clydeside are hardly what you would call 'liberal' yet they're iron clad Labour, often with 'yellow dog' MP's. The Tories would be wasting their time trying to appeal to these sort of places. In any case the social conservatives have lost the battle in the UK. Standing on a socially conservative platform will LOSE you votes, in droves. Whether people are socially conservative or not, they don't like being preached to and don't like government interfearence in private affairs. The only thing a social conservative would gain votes with is immigration, however Labour do tow a very socially conservative line with regards to this anyway.

[ABD]

My comment on Howard's social conservatism appears to have sparked an interesting conversation!

In forums like this, it's often the socially liberal 'activist' Labour and Lib Dem voters that argue that a socially liberal Conservative would be more likely to attract votes.  But from where?

Here's the key question:  How many of you guys here in this forum would actually vote Conservative in a marginal seat if Ken Clarke had been leader?  Could you have actually marked the X in the Tory box?  Or would you revert to form?  

If not, then why should the Conservative Party bother listening to people like you, instead of people that have in fact been pre-1992 faithful Tory voters who are easier to persuade to return both to the polls and then the  Tory fold?

Pretending a socially liberal Conservative leader would make a difference due to his philosophical outlook is an argument that lacks much support to back it up.  All it seeks to do is cloak lefties in a warm sense of self-satisfaction that the two parties share the same mindset.

Be honest! : )

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well I wouldn't vote Tory under any leader...
Big problems the Tories have is demographic changes.
Most young voters are "ABC"(anyone but conservative), and the Tories have really pissed them off with their stupid idea of scrapping the New Deal for increased pensions.

[English]

ABD, you misunderstand the reasons why the Tories won 4 elections in a row. It was mostly based on the economy and tax. More people thought the Tories were more competant at running the economy than Labour. In fact in the 80's a lot of people thought Labour would be a absolute disaster economically! Social issues really don't figure highly in Britain, campaigning on social issues would lose you votes here, trust me. The Tories tried this in the mid 90's with 'Back to Basics' and it was political suicide. It just reeked of hypocrisy and downright bigotry. How dare a party as sleezy as the Tories start preaching morals to the electorate? That's what most people thought. If the Tories want to start winning elections again, they should be fighting on the economy, tax and public services. That's the reason they used to win, it had nothing whatsoever to do with social issues, many people hated their stance on social matters, but still voted Tory, simply because they thought Labour would wreck the economy.

[ABD]

English, I don't disagree with anything in your post!  The points I was trying to make, in one way or another, were:

1. The value of commentary from left-leaning UK contributors here on the supposed electoral damage Michael Howard's personal social values does to the Tories is very low, as they are not likely to vote Tory anyway (a la Realpolitik).

2.   I'm well aware that a non-economic agenda won't win the Tories an election.  That was recognised when I still worked at CCO a couple of months ago before I came home to Australia.   Howard will continue that direction.