His problems are that he’s a flip-flopper, has little political acumen (really, laying down the line over grammar schools?) and has little leadership ability.
Yeah, but what matters is how you come across in person. Boris Johnson as potential PM is a non-starter.
Re the OP, it’s very difficult to oppose a centrist government in times of economic prosperity, and even a non-Labour voter like me has to give some credit to the incumbents for the fact that the economy is still in good shape after ten years of their tenure although they did inherit a good a economy and only got elected because they promised to not change Tory economic policy, grumble grumble. I don’t like their fondness for answering every problem with a new law, or their tendency to meddle in things which the state should not interfere with, but really those are minor complaints and, for a Labour government, they’re not that bad.
I think UKIP will pick up a lot of right-wing votes, as well as BNP… particularly on the anti-europe, anti-immigrant ticket.
I’m not so sure about that: if he were the leader, he would define the message.
I think I need to elaborate: his gaffes have been going off message rather than being caught out in lies. Apart from being caught having an affair, that is, IIRC.
If the Tories change leader now, they’ll set themselves up to lose not just the next election, but the one after that.
It’s been said before, but Cameron is the weapon to win the last war. Two years ago he came on stage at Bournemouth looking slick, spoke fluently without notes and generally impersonated a c.1994 Blair. “Great” said the Tory conference, “that’s the kind of charismatic, well presented leader we need to compete with the great showman.” Now he’s up against Gordon Brown, who is solid, dour, hard-headed and laden with gravitas. Suddenly Cameron looks like a shiny-suited car salesman in comparison. But who can the Tories turn to? They don’t have any great statesmen (funny what 10 years out of power will do for you) so they need to focus on looking like the party on the whole could win an election. To do that they need some policies (in review) some coherence (might come with the policies, but nothing so far encourages that) and some unity. They’re miles from that.
Cameron is trying to a) change direction away from the “nasty party” and into the centre and b) unify a party whose grassroots are out of touch and vastly more right wing than the country. These goals conflict, and he’s going to be taking fire on both sides until he goes down. Then they’ll elect someone more right-wing who’ll get party support (such as Boris or dear God, Michael Ancram) who will be totally, utterly unelectable because not only will they be a long way from the electorate, but any popular policies they do have will be co-opted by Brown anyhow. (Check his recent "Britain good, alcohol bad, police good "conference speech for details).
The Tories won’t be elected until the old guard enter the assisted living centre and they drag themselves into the 1990s. Labour have finally managed the post-Blair transition and will win the next two elections on the strength of Brown’s position as Britain’s most experienced politician.
Very well put.
How about David Davis?
God help us no! Another blast from the past.
They’ve got to stick with Cameron until after the next election - win or loose. Then they can think again. Dumping yet another leader now will just make them look desparate, making Gordon look even better.
Agreed. In my OP I pointed out that he’d already lost the election.
One of the big problems is that the Tories got rid of Michael Howard far too early: he should have stayed on at least a year, if not two, to let the members of the Shadow Cabinet develop. Such is the benefit of hindsight.
However, the longer Michael Howard was leader, the more difficult it would have been to shake off the “Nasty Party” image.
It’s probably not worth starting a thread about, but the media coverage of his speech is really, really stupid.
Imagine this: you’re a leader of a major opposition party. The party in governement are making noises about calling an unexpected election. Simultaneously, you’re scheduled to make a big address to your party. What are you going to say about the prospect of an election:
a) “We’re ready, bring it on,” or
b) “Oh no, please don’t, we’re just not ready”?
Of *course * Cameron put his game face on and told his party they were ready to fight an election. It doesn’t tell mean that they *are * - it just means he’s not completely stupid. But everyone - everyone - is suddenly banging on about what that speech means for Labour, “has the wind been taken out of Brown’s sails, isn’t this a surprise?” et cetera, et cetera. I’d expect it from the Mail and the Express, but Newsnight? The Guardian? Ye gods, it took Ken Clarke - Ken bleedin’ Clarke - to point out the obvious. “Of course, Cameron had to say that” he said, and Paxman blanched.
I’ve got a friend whose job took him to the Conservative Party Conference. He amused himself, in converstation with delegates, by saying things like, “Of course, in 4 weeks time you lot could be running the country.” Most people giggled - not one said, “Yes, you’re right - we will be”, or treated it like a serious proposition in any way.
A couple of Tory bloggers have claimed a “victory” for Cameron in forcing Brown to postpone the election.
Which seems to me that they still don’t really believe they can win… if they had a chance they’d welcome an election, instead they are all breathing a HUGE sigh of relief that we won’t go to the polls this autumn.
Does anyone know what odds Ladbrokes are offering on DC being Prime Minister in December? Something tells me that the odds are long, long, long.
Actually, that’s something to do today - find Tory, propose bet, laugh in face at heartfelt rejection thereof.
The Tory party has no hope of winning the next election, even though David Cameron has proven himself to be an effective leader and is taking them in the right direction in terms of presenting them as a party people might actually want in power. The fact is that Labour is just too well entrenched to be displaced by the Tories - Labour has given the nation prosperity and relative order and growth. Apart from Iraq it’s governed well for the last ten years, so what exactly are the problems that the Tories can legitimately point out need to be fixed?
The situation was completely different in 97 as the Tories were imploding and the country was falling apart at the seams, so a change in government is what was called for. Now? Why change what isn’t broken?