Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Conservatives do lose power next May they’d be fooli
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Conservatives do lose power next May they’d be foolish to get rid of Cameron
Farage has said he’ll stand down if his party fails to get an MP and it is hard to see Clegg being able to carry on if the election resin the disaster being predicted by the polls.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Record defeat !!
Titter ....
It also seems likely that the winning candidate would be one with similar views on europe, so the Tories naval gazing infighting over europe carries on. They never learn.
It has long been considered that the Tories are more interested in power rather than governance, and a loser, is a loser and long live the new leader.
The choices in the poll were, I assume, determined by Lord Ashcroft
I was trying to think of a scenario where he might hang on. Maybe a minority Labour administration that might collapse at any minute so the tories did not want the distraction of a leadership campaign? It is looking increasingly unlikely that that scenario will trouble the tories or indeed Labour.
Cameron is an asset as PM; he was an asset as a new or relatively new Leader of the Opposition; I'm far from convinced he'd be an asset as LotO after losing power - the simple fact is that ex-PM's who stay on have a different relationship with their backbenches, parties and shadow ministers than newly elected ones, and that would feed through to public consciousness. "Didn't beat Brown, didn't beat Miliband" would be a hard tag to shake off, even if it was unfair.
The Conservative Party can be very flexible in adapting to the situation when it comes to retaining or achieving power.
However, the frothers will install a rightwing eurosceptic rather than a liberal phile like Cam and put themselves further from power. That would be my guess anyway.
I don't think that's correct. As I recall Mr Farage said he'd stand down if UKIP did not win the EU Parliament elections, _and_ UKIP didn't win an MP, _and_ there wasn't a referendum.
(It was an interview question.)
I notice that Ed's hardly been on TV for a week or two. Great tactical awareness by Labour and rewarded by a small increase in their poll share. They've finally got the message.
Can they arrange for him to disappear inside the Peruvian embassy for the GE campaign?
If he doesn't then I would fear for the Tory party. There is no one, with the possible exception of Theresa, who could hold it all together. If they do go for a eurosceptic they will forever (ie two electoral cycles) be out of power.
Cam is often criticised for his namby-pambiness (mainly by fantasist right-wingers in the party). But in the end, I give him the benefit of the doubt, given his rescue of the nasty party up to but stopping short of an OM.
He is a schmoozer and can rally those of disparate views around a central direction of travel. That might have been a weakness in 2010, but will increasingly be seen as a strength, perhaps especially after a defeat. I really would despair if the Cons thought: well the central, consensual candidate was beaten, let's have an extremist.
Such a set of ideals does not sit very well with any strong ideology because ideologies are by their nature intolerant and intolerance is one of the things he is against. Those who are obsessed with an ideology or an obsession like Europe think this is weakness and that he really doesn't believe in anything. They are mistaken on both counts.
of course if there is a Yes vote this year then he might well go as British politics will be in a tizzy and I don't necessarily expect the head of the Cons & Unionist Party to remain in place following the dissolution of the Union.
That's not my impression.
If you don't have goals to aim for, you just react to events.
I can live with a small state-er.
They could still do it if Aguero is match-fit (and especially if Di Michellis is replaced).
For about 20 years in the mid 19th century until the party reformed to the left and the Peelites returned home
Then the Ditchers tried to split off to the right but ultimately withered.
Now it's UKIP's turn.
But the lesson from history is the Tories are very successful when they occupy the centre right and right. But that a right-only party is not successful in the UK.
It's better to compare Cameron with potential successors and the impact a change of leadership (whether with coronation or contest) would have on the party.
Ditching him now would be crackers. If he stays PM, he stays as leader, if he loses, he won't.
More interesting is what would happen to Miliband if Labour increased to, say, 290-300 seats and the Conservatives stood still. That would mark very significant progress for the reds, but they wouldn't be in power.
"Their right isn’t like our left. They believe they can win from the right in a way Labour could never do from the left and they are correct in that."
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/viewer.html?doc=202593-doc27
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8566997/Labour-coup-The-Ed-Balls-files-database-released.html
Another hung parliament would be interesting, but hard to have the LDs as kingmakers when they have just lost half their seats, so a minority government would probably emerge. This could probably not last 5 years. It would probably be best to replace the losing leader quickly so as to be ready for an election by autumn 2015.
Most likely we will have a Labour working majority though. The 35% strategy is likely to work and the Miliband effect is priced in already, with any surprises likely to be on the upside.
Does Cameron? I'd accept that he's a tolerant man who wants the country to do well and basically sees himself as a team leader and coordinator with few views on what oughr to happen in the medium term. He allows more ideological people (Osborne on the size of the state, Gove on schools structure and even individual books, the 2010 health team on NHS restructuring, IDS on Universal Credit) to pursue their agendas, neither obviously encouraging or discouraging them except when they fight each other. Whether that's really good leadership is debatable: the weakness is that the overall sense is that we're going nowhere in particular but doing drastic things when a particular minister wants them. One can't accuse him of Blairite dominance, but it feels quite random.
Will he survive if he loses next year? I doubt it. There isn't really a substantial fan club beyond MPs thinking he's a winner. If he's not, then Tory MPs will feel there's not much left.
The power of his subbutteo derived analysis is not yet reaching OGHs prescience of last nights half time though!
None of these are particularly important statistics, per se, and you should always be cautious about reading too much into single data points, but after a run of good economic data, we should be aware that the latest stats are not so encouraging.
They could take stock of their predicament, or take comfort in Dan Hodges articles and the inevitable run of Tory Press anti-Miliband smears.
They'll inevitably take the latter course. Tories don't do hard decisions.
Do we have a prophet of profit from Bedford among us ?
I see @NickPalmer is reviving the old Marxist tactic of accusing people he disagrees with of being "ideological". Can he identify any politician, at any time, who has not been "ideological"?
So results are what matter and Cameron has been a pretty moderate failure so far (never won an election, split the right, done some reforms but mostly resistant to change) but it is too early to say, when or if he loses the next election he is out.
A failure is a failure.
The important job of vanquishing the evil South American enemy is only half done; it must be completed this evening when Netherlands beat Argentina by at least 8-0. The irresponsible, aggressive and provocative sabre-rattling of President Kirchner of Argentina in relation to the Falkland Islands must be punished. Now that it is no longer fashionable in polite society to call for foreign leaders to be assassinated, let's hope that the equivalent punishment in the field of sport can be accomplished.
For the sake of Europe, for democracy, and for the liberty and self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, Netherlands must today beat Argentina 8-0. or 10-0. Or 15-0. If this is not done successfully, then Germany must massacre the Argentinian aggressors in the final by at least 27-0.
Ed (as did Dave) will have done nearly 5 years as leader before the election. If he wins, after 5 years we will be bored of him, 10 years is enough for any leader, (the concept of 15 with a second term is ridiculous).
By getting the leadership early in the term Ed had this intractable problem, too much time to formulate policy. He wants to have a vibrant, fresh energetic and exciting policy platform to fight in 2015. It needs to be announced in late 2014 / early 2015, so he has had four years to present himself to us as a ditherer, a policy free zone, a blank sheet of paper. He has had ample time for inertia to set in and take hold, delay to become normal, because there is no need for progress, in fact progress to the policy goals is detrimental to the project in the early days.
Everything would be much more positive worked in a shorter time scale. Three years before the election, he is still fresh and new, his policies are visible in development, there is direction and focus, inertia will not be seen to set in.
It is also far more difficult for the incumbent government to adapt to a new team and opposition leader mid term, it gives them a fresh set of problems and personnel to cope with.
And just think another 16 years of winning half-time football tips from OGH before the Conservatives leave power .... what more could you possible want ?
20 years of Labour in government might just jolt Tories from their complacent slumber.
But I wouldn't guarantee it.
So do other parties select their leader by whether they can wear a suit that fits them well and whether they have good communication skills.
Test this for yourself. Ask people with only a mild interest in politics if they like Cameron and if so, why do they like him.
Sheesh.
Nonetheless, if Ed Miliband becomes PM, I would expect Cameron to pass the poisoned chalice to someone new. The party would need a new face. tim, late of this parish, used to point out that it would have been better for the Conservatives if Cameron had become leader closer to the election: that long period of opposition means you lose the novelty bounce, and now, with fixed terms, it is possible in theory to bide your time in a way which was very risky previously. Nonetheless I think Cameron would move on, perhaps leaving a reasonably long period for his successor to be selected.
Of course, we are far from there yet, and all the indications are that the election outcome may well be reasonably favourable for the Conservatives. We shall see.
Well, it's compeletely overblown according to the former head of MI6:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/07/islamist-terror-threat-out-proportion-former-mi6-chief-richard-dearlove
People like him (those that do, anyway) because of this, and because he comes across as a decent bloke who has had some tough trials in his life, but is in place at the tiller, and is preferable to the other tiller-wannabes.
He's good at presentation.
Nick, I hate to break the news to you, but Cameron wants Gove to sort out education, IDS to sort out welfare, Osborne to sort out the economy, and the NHS to become more efficient. This is not individual ministers pursuing their own agendas, it is ministers pursuing the government's agenda, and is certainly not 'ideological'. You are right in a sense that Cameron sees himself as a team leader and coordinator: that is precisely his strength. He and his colleagues have identified the four great challenges you describe, and he is giving talented ministers time and space to get on with tackling them, without interfering from his sofa on a day-to-day basis as Blair so hopelessly did. That is not 'going nowhere particular', it is good government.
The only basis on which it could happen is if Milliband doesn't get a majority and can't form a coalition, making another autumn 2015 election highly probable.
Sorting out in the sense the Kray twins would "sort out" local diffculties.
Each one of those has been a disaster in Tory hands.
With the NHS at the top following the hideously inept and unwanted reorganisation, education not far behind dragged down by the sheer idiocy of the Free Schools policy, welfare now more expensive than ever and the economy showing clear signs of rightwing negelect.
It's not until the rabble underneath him implode ( a la 92-97) that he will get his cards from the electorate.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/the-government-must-address-the-effect-of-mass-immigration-on-poorer-voters/
I have a lot of time for Frank Field, but I do wonder at the bizarre logic here (which Miliband seems to share). The remedy for too much immigration is apparently to increase wages.
But, if you increase wages, you make it more attractive for workers from the EU to come here. That increases, not reduces, the competition which young British workers would face in applying for jobs, thereby increasing unemployment even if the wage increase doesn't of itself reduce the number of jobs which are economic for employers to provide. How on earth does that solve the problem?
The ideologue's argument is that if you don't believe in things you can't force through the changes that are required to make it happen. I think that is wrong and simplistic. I think in most areas of life, in both public service and private, what is needed is an open and flexible mind which is willing to look at all the evidence, especially the bits that do not fit the preconceived ideas.
This is undoubtedly slower and can be frustrating but it also allows better decision making at the end of the day.
I don't accept this is a government of ideologues. Gove, for example, is very focussed on improving education for the less advantaged and is intolerant of those he perceives as blocking the changes necessary to help them whilst another generation goes by. This can make him look like an ideologue who is not listening to the evidence of those who see the complexities. But his actual record does not, in my view at least, support such an analysis.
Incidentally, you said that calling people "ideological" was a Marxist claim, but you've just said everyone in politics is ideological, right? Marxists, as I recall, regard it as a compliment. They feel that debating politics with someone not ideological is like discussing philosophy with a sheep - restful, even charming, but not ultimately productive. (If I may say so, you seem much more Marxist than I am.)
Perhaps it's not such a special quality that Cameron possesses? Also, one of Cameron's goals was to "detoxify" the Conservatives as a brand. If that is another thing he has failed to achieve then perhaps the party would be right to look for a leader who might articulate a new Conservatism that would convince the public that the party had their best interests at heart, rather than blaming them for their ills.
When I went to volunteer for Obama in 2008 I saw that energy first-hand too; 90 year old women baked cookies and delivered them to our office to help in any way they could. Getting people to do that for you is no easy task.
When I first wrote that Ed Miliband should be leader of the Labour party back in 2009, it was because he inspired me too. At a time when Labour was intellectually bankrupt and devoid of energy, he worked tirelessly and spoke passionately about climate change and the challenges it presented. His tireless work at Copenhagen generated the sort of admiration across party lines that is still very rare. Rather than accept defeat he visibly fought and won beyond expectations.
Even when Miliband launched his leadership bid, rejecting New Labour’s descent into illiberalism and its lazy acceptance of growing inequality, there was an energy and excitement around his insurgent campaign that simply didn’t exist with other candidates.
But somewhere along the line, Ed Miliband seems to have forgotten how to express his urgent sense of mission and change. Rather than convey it with energy and passion, he has retreated to the comfort zone of orchestrated speeches and policy announcements."
http://labourlist.org/2014/07/ed-miliband-needs-to-inspire-the-labour-party-not-just-lead-it/
But if you look at it from another perspective, a political one, the Labour strategy suddenly makes perfect sense. You make a lot larger share of the population low income workers, and screw the market so much that you force them to depend on left-wing policies to survive at all. Plus you have the added advantage that the newcomers are people without any connection to the history and traditions of this nation, so they won't have any attachment to patriotic conservatism. They are also a lot less likely to mind as you hand over sovereign powers to an EU superstate.
It's a recipe that has worked fantastically well for them in London, and they want to repeat it across the rest of the country. If anyone complains too much, you can just scream racist at them, and get the immigrant communities even more strongly in your pocket. This gets a bit more difficult when many of the immigrants are white people, but you can just change the meaning of "racism" so its not connected to race.
You should not be too ideological because that gets in the way of seeking advice, but you can not be a fence sitter as that gets in the way of making decisions.
In addition, government and politics is a team sport and whilst you need your charismatic striker, that is no good without the background team support.
If any of the recent parties of government really cared about the English working class, they would do it.
Whether this is right or not, I don't know. But it's a plausible hypothesis.
" I think in most areas of life, in both public service and private, what is needed is an open and flexible mind which is willing to look at all the evidence, especially the bits that do not fit the preconceived ideas.
This is undoubtedly slower and can be frustrating but it also allows better decision making at the end of the day."
There still comes a point when the person in charge has to make a decision. At that point they are likely to upset one or more groups of people who for many possible reasons will not agree with said decision. In politics those people will then attack the decision maker as an ideologue, refusing to listen to the experts and all the rest of it and the political opponents will jump on the band wagon.
A lot of the looking at evidence, weighing of alternatives and exploring likely unintended consequences can and, perhaps, should be done before entering government. I think there is evidence to suggest that is indeed what Gove and IDS did.
The curious thing, at least to me is that at face value, there appears to have been a straight switch of 2%-3% from Conservative to Labour, whereas the level of support for the LibDems and UKIP seems almost unchanged.
"Not doubting her integrity but hard to see why Baroness Butler Sloss would want to accept a role so many regard as conflicted at the outset
8:51am - 9 Jul 14"
www.twitter.com/drwollastonmp
My point was indeed that all politicians are ideological. Politicians such as yourself accusing other politicians of being "ideological" is patent hypocrisy. The implication is that your opponents are blinded by false consciousness, whereas you have achieved objectivity. Your use of the term in relation to Osborne and Gove thus corresponds precisely to the Marxist concept of ideology.
I accept of course that the analogy is not perfect: we're talking about people here, not goods, and there are knock-on effects to immigration in terms of infrastructure, housing, schools, etc, and of course cultural cohesiveness. All the same, putting up barriers is really addressing the symptom, not the cause.
Definitely not. Absolutely not. He was just offering them advice from the goodness of his heart.