|
|
|
|
#1
10-29-2003, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Iain Duncan Smith is out. Why?
I'm an American, and not versed in UK politics; maybe some UK Dopers can help?
The vague impression I get on this side of the pond is that Tony Blair is fighting for his political life. I also get the impression that Smith has been trying to lead the Tories toward the center by pushing for more toleration of gays and reaching out to minorities and the poor. Sounds to me like a good strategy when you're out of power and the other party's leader is in trouble. So why are the Tories ditching him? 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
10-29-2003, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Smith isn't very charismatic, and not all that good a speaker. He also hasn't been attacking Blair very harshly about Iraq...a lot of Tories think he was given an opportunity to score political points and blew it.
Also, some people still resent him for his role in getting rid of Major.
|
|
#3
10-29-2003, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes, the principal reason is that he has no charisma whatsoever, and so whenever he starts to speak, the public start to snore. Blair makes mincemeat of him in practically ever public argument they have.
The subtext, however, is in-fighting amongst Conservative MPs which dates all the way back to the final months of Margaret Thatcher's leadership and bitterness over how and why she was ditched. No leader has been able to heal the wounds that were created at that time, and successive leaders have been chosen because they had few obvious enemies rather than because they were especially suited to leadership. The Tory Party is split between numerous competeing factions and there is little consensus about what they ought to stand for. That lack of unity is an even bigger problem for the voters than IDS's lack of personality – his predecessor, William Hague, was much better at speaking in the House of Commons but he couldn't unite his party either and the voters don't like it. This summary might help you to understand some of the problems he's had: IDS: Doomed from the start? Also, displaying "more toleration of gays and reaching out to minorities and the poor" as you phrase it are not big vote winners among Conservatives. As far as Tony Blair's difficulties are concerned, the crumbling, factionalised Conservative Party doesn't represent an attractive alternative to enough voters. For example, those of his critics who believe he was too close to President Bush over the Iraq situation would have found that a Tory party led by IDS was at least as close (so if they reject Blair they are more likely to switch to the Liberal Democrats). People who complain that Labour are too cosy with the European Union are already Tory voters.
|
|
#4
10-29-2003, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeez, it sounds like the Tories are in terrible disarray. Everton, the article you linked to shows that the Tories' poll numbers have been consistently going up while Smith was in power, yet even that wasn't enough to unite his party behind him.
Are the Tories going to blow it, then? Will Blair ride this thing out just because the Tories can't unite against him?
|
|
#5
10-29-2003, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I remember when IDS was elected Tory leader (on 12 September 2001--talk about an inauspicious day to get started), there already were rumblings among the Tory backbenchers. IDS was the first Tory leader to be elected by the "whole party"--meaning that the rank-and-file Tory members had a say, not just the MPs. Indeed, as the article everton links to notes, IDS was actually the second choice of the MPs, but lost the party election. Today's vote of confidence was limited only to MPs....obviously he hadn't won over any of them during the last two years.
|
|
#7
10-29-2003, 09:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The improvements in the Tories' position have only been gradual, and it's standard procedure for government parties to lose popular support in the middle of a term. Lack of enthusiasm for Blair should not be interpreted as enthusiasm for the opposition. The gap between them stands at 5%, but because of the details of our system that still translates to a Labour majority of 160 seats in the House of Commons if there were a General Election tomorrow.
As that linked article confirms, however, switching Tory leader at this stage is unlikely to help them and may make the situation even worse. The front runner for leadership replacement is Michael Howard, and while 19% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote Tory if he were the leader, 26% said they would be less likely. Howard is connected to some of the more controversial Thatcher policies (he was a member of her cabinet); he has even been described as "sinister" and "dangerous" by prominent members of the party and a lot of people think he is a downright liar. The fact that IDS was the first ever leader chosen by all the members of the Tory party (previously they were chosen by small committees of MPs) will cause extra problems for whoever steps in – grass roots activists are said to be furious about this outcome. Nevertheless, it's debatable to what degree Blair would succeed against a united Tory party. Blair's critics include a number of people who complain that Labour has become too like the Tories, and those people are unlikely to switch their vote towards the right. Personally it would be a cold day in hell before I would vote Conservative. So the problems they have are multiple and contradictory. They have to be seen to unite; they have to be a distinctive alternative to Labour; and yet they also have to be popular with a majority of voters. The risk is that even if they achieve one of those things the result will automatically fail to achieve one of the others.
|
|
#8
10-30-2003, 06:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I also get the impression that Smith has been trying to lead the Tories toward the center by pushing for more toleration of gays and reaching out to minorities and the poor."
Im interested where/how did you get this impression? I havent noticed it at all!
|
|
#9
10-30-2003, 06:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is that under Smith the Conservatives were unelectable. What I find telling is that it seems they might elect Michael Howard, thus firmly retaining their reputation as the Nasty Party and, surely, remaining unelectable? Does anyone else here feel that this indicates that they have effectively written off the next election so that Portillo or Clarke can make a serious play for the centre ground afterwards, in time for the 2008 election? If so, I feel the Lib Dems might shovel every penny into the next election (and ditch Chucky in favour of a true social democrat like Simon Hughes) in a genuine play for Second Party status.
|
|
#10
10-30-2003, 07:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else who's studied British political history that Michael Howard's the rough equivalent of Herbert Samuel, and that what the Tories have gone through in the past few years resembles the fate of the Liberal Party post-1914?
|
|
#11
10-30-2003, 07:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes, Smith comes from the right of the Tory party, he has however made attempts to change the parties image, for example he has successfully suppressed the constant eurosceptic rhetoric which made them look a little like a one-issue party (though he himself is a euroscpetic and though the rhetoric has been cut-down the strength of feeling on this issue within the party has not). With him as leader his party is still unelectable as he despite his attempts to throw off the image his party is still seen as the party of little-englanders and the rural upperclass (not a good thing when the UK is ~95% urban).
Howard (who will almost certainly win the leadership contest)represents a more cenritst (within the party) postion, but he still has baggage from his time as a cabinet member under the last Tory government. I also agree with sentient meat, Portillo or Clarke (or even a Portillo-Clarke axis) would represent a much better propostion at the general election, howver Portillo and Clarke are not well-liked in the party (esp. among grass roots supporters) as they are europhiles (and because of Portillo's admission of a 'homosexual experince' whilst at university). It'd probably take another crushing election defeat for the party to relaize that they should be selecting those who are most electable rather than those they like the best.
|
|
#12
10-30-2003, 07:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#13
10-30-2003, 07:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
10-30-2003, 07:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Iain Duncan Smith has many positive qualities: he is a decent man, loyal to his wife; good with policy and a tottenham supporter.
Unfortunately he is not suited for the modern political arena. He is an ineffective performer in television and is up against one of the best media performers in the world in Blair (and the third party leader is also extremely good on telly - with a friendly "man of the people" image) There are other issues with IDS, and his handling of his office (not the storm in a teacup over his expenses - but his management of Conservative central office). He created a lot of resentment in the back rooms of the office with his high-handed attitude and hire-and fire behaviour (David Davis being an obvious example) At this moment in time the Bair government are ripe for a kicking. The public has lost trust in them, and their policies (such as they are) are bobbins. Unfortunately IDS never laid a glove on Blair. Even William Hague showed him up for the over-polished autocue monkey he is. To take an analogy with the labour party, Hague was our Michael Foot; IDS our Kinnock; Howard will be our John Smith and will hand over to our Blair (hopefully) after the next election (which we will lose). Quite who that person is I’m not sure, but Blair came from nowhere – and Thatcher was a minor minister. The position of Conservative Leader is an important one for those of you who don’t vote Tory too. This government is by far the worst since records began (or at least sine the Marquis of Bute) and it needs to be held accountable. Michael Howard can do this. IDS couldn’t. Owl (Conservative party member and constituency activist – who voted for Ken Clarke last time, and would rather have Boris Johnson as leader)
|
|
#15
10-30-2003, 07:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Isnt the problem that the grassroots of the Tory Party are no longer normal conservative middle-aged middle-class citizens, but have withered into a rump of atavistic, senile, nationalist bigots who are incapable of choosing an electable leader.
|
|
#16
10-30-2003, 07:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
10-30-2003, 08:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Most are pretty much what you'd expect, middle aged, middle class people who think the world is going to hell in a handbag. However a poster above is spot on about our electoral sophistication regarding a leader. We will elect someone we like, rather than someone the rest of the country might like.
|
|
#21
10-30-2003, 09:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#22
10-30-2003, 09:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
One of the "irregularities" that he is being investigated for is using his official jag for private use. The journey in question was from his house to White Hart Lane to watch the boys against the Arse. Being a spurs fan will make him used to disappointment.
|
|
#24
10-30-2003, 03:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Better not let the facts get in the way of your opinion. V
|
|
#25
10-30-2003, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
IDS was/is another faceless, grey, bald suit from a party that has been full of them for the last 15 years. No wonder he got nowhere and will be forgotten even faster than William Hague was.
You can sum his up with the the fact that the Labour benches used to sarcastically "ssshhhhh" when he stood up to speak. So much for the 'quiet man'. Tory policy on gay matters hardly counts as a consideration. If you want to start a real party-splitting argument in the Conservative party all you have to do is mention Europe.
|
|
#27
10-30-2003, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
One small problem with the people who've suggested that the LibDems become a party of the left:
If I recall correctly, much of the British left is tied to the trade union movement, which, for obvious reasons, will not bolt from the Labor Party. However, this doesn't prevent the possibility that there might be a Old Labor-LibDem coalition...
|
|
#28
10-30-2003, 09:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
"He was 'particularly sorry' that he would not have the opportunity to fulfill his promises to some of the poorest people in the country. " and a bit further down "Duncan Smith, the 49-year-old son of a World War II fighter pilot and a ballerina, surprised many by leading the traditionalist Tories in a moderate direction. "He appointed the party's first female chairman, supported a Tory lawmaker who disclosed he was gay, and sought to make the party more inclusive by attracting more women, ethnic minorities and young people. " http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...ote/index.html
|
|
#29
10-31-2003, 05:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
One thing that I have been told (and I believe to be true) is that even if Howard is the only candidiate we (members) still have to vote for him. ie we will get a North Korea style ballot slip with one candididate on it.
|
|
#30
10-31-2003, 05:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#31
10-31-2003, 05:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I was a (lazy) Councillor for a little while though.
|
|
#32
10-31-2003, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#33
10-31-2003, 09:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And this government is easily the worst since the war. THe only one I've got any time for is Dianne Abbot - who at least is honest.
|
|
#34
10-31-2003, 09:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A more odious, slimy and loathsome politician it’s difficult to imagine.
I recall his stint as Home Sec with deep horror; the populist tabloid-pleasing policies were so utterly destructive to on going and important penal reform we used to call it ‘The Penal League for Howard Reform’. The man is an unspeakable abomination. And that’s putting it mildly. I agree he’s there to take the Bit Hit at the next election and to start making inroads – IDS has been truly the worst performer at the Despatch Box in my memory. Must be so demoralising for the Parliamentary party at a time when Blair has been a sitting duck on Iraq. After Howard, it really does have to be David Davies, though once in situ, the loathsome one will be very difficult to budge. He shouldn’t be underestimated, as awful as he is, he’s effective and he’s a survivor. David Davies is, I believe, the Tories main hope. Pure quality. But not just yet, no point in being another (suicidal) William Hague.
|
|
#36
10-31-2003, 10:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good tory leaders in waiting: Liam Fox, Alan Duncan (yes, I know), Oliver Letwin, Steve Norris, Mr TV - Portillo, Boris.
However I think there is every possibility that the next good leader is someone we've never heard of - in the same way that Blair was a non-entity when Smith was elected. Howard will do better than IDS would. He will rough up Blair and Brown and start the process of ridding us of this loathsome, hypocritical, spineless, government. Courage mes braves, liberation is on it's way! Freedom For Putney! Owl who has reluctantly voted for the mellorphantman in the past.
|
|
#37
10-31-2003, 10:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#38
10-31-2003, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You could have fooled me.
|
|
#39
10-31-2003, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
With the candidates that owlstretchingtime mentioned above:
If Norris loses another bid for Mayor of London, thats the end of him. Boris Johnson probably will suffer from the Spectator Curse- the only editor of that newspaper to ever rise to a high position in the Tory Party was Gilmour, and he had been a memeber of the Cabinet before he became editor. Portillo's (probably) out for ideological reasons.
|
|
#40
10-31-2003, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
By the way has anyone mentioned the Jeremy Paxman interview yet? V
|
|
#41
10-31-2003, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paxman ?
I took a golf putter to the teevee over a year ago and still haven’t managed to hoover up all the glass. It’s a little like when a windscreen goes, you find shards for donkeys afterwards. For anyone contemplating violence apropos their Trinitron and on and on . . . I recommend the garden as a venue. Via an upstairs window. And don't forget to unplug it, otherwise it looks a little avant garde hanging half-way down the wall. Anyway, one of the very few things I miss is Paxo, Mon-Thurs at 10.30pm. A shame, but a small price to pay for being liberated from that nonsense box in the corner. And I’m not talking about the girlie. What about Paxo, did he interview IDS ?
|
|
#42
10-31-2003, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Brit please bring us Yanks up to speed here. For some reason, the American media rarely pay much attention to British politics, our "special relationship" notwithstanding.
For one thing, when is the next general election in the UK? I understand the prime minister can call one at any time; and Parliament can take a vote of no confidence and, if it passes, dissolve itself and force an election. But by statute there has to be an election at least once every . . . five years? Three years? What's the term? When would there have to be another election? Second, what are the main points of difference between Labour and the Tories these days? I understand Blair's "New Labour" has done a lot to move the party towards the center, repudiate its socialist heritage, and curb the institutional power of the labor unions within the party -- so what's left, now, to distinguish the Conservative Party from the Labour Party? I mean, apart from the fact that the one is "a rump of atavistic, senile, nationalist bigots who are incapable of choosing an electable leader," and the other is "a bunch of slack-jawed sweater-wearing bad-skinned malodorous bien pensant bicyling vegetarian chippy mommets." Third, I understand there is a significant third party in the UK, the Liberal Democrats, who occupy an ideological position between Labour and the Tories -- but how much space in between them can there be, these days? And what are the LibDems' prospects if an election is held in the near future? And what are the LibDems' policies, exactly? Fourth, is there any possibility, at this point, that the Blair government will fall because of controversy over its support of the Iraq war? Or is all that starting to die down? (The news over here hasn't mentioned it in a while.)
|
|
#43
10-31-2003, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Paxman did a quite famous interview with Howard a while back when he asked him he same question about 20 times ("Did you threaten to over-rule him?") and Howard evaded answering each time. He didn't even do it particularly subtley, as all successful politicians do, it was obvious to everyone that the answer was 'yes' but he wasn't going to say that. Howard was Thatch's chief henchman when it came to implementing the poll tax. We haven't forgotten that one either.
|
|
#44
10-31-2003, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#46
11-01-2003, 09:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Answering Brain's first question:
Elections must be held every five years. The next election must be held by 2006, as the last one was held in 2001. And, with the fourth question: There is a possibility for it to happen. However, it's almost a Catch-21: If the left-wing of Labour does it over policy, the Tories (who voted for going into Iraq) wouldn't support it, and if the Tories propose it, the left-wing of Labour will vote against it.
|
|
#47
11-01-2003, 10:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What about the LibDems? Does anybody have any pungent epithets for them, or are they not even worth the bother?
|
|
#48
11-01-2003, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[nitpick]
Posted by Governor Quinn: Quote:
|
|
#49
11-01-2003, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This turned out to be a good debate didn't it?
 . Maybe this will help a little...Quote:
Quote:
Monetary policy used to be a big contrast between Labour and the Tories, but since the current Chancellor of the Exchequer transferred responsibility for setting interest rates from his department to the Bank of England it no longer matters for that purpose who is Chancellor or what party they belong to. Neither the Tories nor the Lib Dems have any plans to reverse that policy. Public or private ownership of key industries was also a big litmus test in the past – Labour broadly favoured nationalisation and the Tories privatisation. Since 1997, Labour have continued the privatisation process. The only future exception might be the railway network, which was privatised under John Major and has seen a number of fatal crashes, a general decline in the quality of service and increase in ticket prices. There is a remote possibility that Labour might renationalise, but there is no such stated policy. They have at least changed the umbrella organisation that runs the UK’s railways to a not-for-profit company (which was a Lib Dem policy at the 2001 election). The Tories’ plan is to increase penalties on rail operators who fail to hit performance targets but claim that privatisation has been a success. Two more key reasons why voters claimed they had switched their allegiance from Tory to Labour in 1997 were that:
Nevertheless, there is no logic in switching your vote back to the Tories on those grounds. The Tories seem to be depending on the public having short enough memories to have forgotten why they were ditched last time, and that being the case, selecting Michael Howard as party leader is quite a gamble. Voter apathy is a much more likely result. ...what are the LibDems' prospects if an election is held in the near future? The Lib Dems also have a long-standing hobby horse of their own – electoral reform. They recognise that introducing some form of proportional representation system instead of the traditional first-past-the-post system would win minority parties like theirs more seats in the House of Commons. Without that sort of change it's unlikely that they can win an election and they may not even become the second party now that IDS has gone, but the smart money is on them increasing their share of the vote with a greatly reduced turnout. Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
