Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tory backbenchers warn “Cameron may have to break up the co
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tory backbenchers warn “Cameron may have to break up the coalition to remain leader”
“A growing number of the talented 2010 intake of MPs, who could play a key role in deciding Cameron’s fate, now believe their party should withdraw from the coalition at least a year before the next general election in 2015.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Can't imagine what Dave can do. Either he does stuff like cancel Gay marriage which would in itself guarantee Con loses the GE. Or he ploughs on and the backbenchers guarantee Con loses the GE.
I guess he just ploughs on and hopes for the best. No alternative really.
Not sure whether he could do a Major and call a leadership election himself right now. I'm not sure whether such a mechanism exists.
"Either he does stuff like cancel Gay marriage which would in itself guarantee Con loses the GE."
I think that's taking things a bit far.
Nobody is going to do anything just before the Euros which are on 22 May 2014. Once we get past that the window is pretty narrow before the summer holidays. In practice I think it's unlikely that a GE would actually get called in that window - bearing in mind the parliamentary procedure required and nobody would want a GE in July.
Then after that there's only a tiny parliamentary window in Sept (less than 2 weeks I think), then the Party Conferences and after that it's too late for a GE as it would be well into November after the time for a campaign.
So not sure what would happen but this all reminds me of the posts about an early GE in 2009. The way the timetable works is that in practice it is very, very difficult for there to be a GE between July and February.
"Nadine Dorries, who recently had the Tory whip restored, last night claimed Cameron had until autumn to raise his game."
Did Nadine not say last summer that there would be a leadership challenge before the end of the year (ie 31 December 2012)?
They still don't realise under FPTP a coalition with the LibDems is the best it's ever going to get..
Anyone can send a letter to the 1922 committee chairman. The letter then stays on file until there are 46 of them. The number of letters collected so far is confidential, so when you send your letter you don't know for sure if you're number 46. You can ask your colleagues, but they're a bunch of lying politicians.
So the upshot is that you could easily get a leadership election no confidence vote without having a proper plot in place to see it through. At that point obviously things may take on a life of their own, but calling the election no confidence vote is a very low bar compared to winning it.
Edited: leadership election -> no confidence vote
'37% and a 7% lead still left them ...'
The bold clause is the most important under FPTP, especially for the poor old Tories, who are playing on a pitch that's angled at 45 degrees...
IDS was a total disaster and an obvious vote loser yet he only lost 90-75.
With Cam being a known vote winner plus the "payroll vote" (even though it's a secret ballot) I would have thought it's very hard to see him actually losing.
I guess the only issue would be whether he might resign if he won only fairly narrowly - say if he got under 60%. Supposedly Major was going to resign if he got under 215 and he actually got 218!
He also thinks Lab may need a lead of 7% to get a majority. See link:
http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf
But if there was a vote, would Cameron really want to hang on? The best he could hope for would be some sort of ambiguous victory, say a 2-1 margin, and Maggie was heading for that when she chucked in the towel. Is Cameron really made of sterner stuff?
Maggie 204
Heseltine 152
Abstentions 16
I'd expect Cameron to win any vote far more decisively than that.
Prime Ministers don't often give up the job willingly, and Cameron seems to perform well under pressure, like with his speech at the party conference before the election that wasn't.
So she was in very grave danger indeed - I would say odds on she would have lost.
I see Kellner has been following my comments attentively. Lol...
Interesting article nonetheless.
I didn't spot the 'Con could get a majority with only a 5% lead' bit, btw, which is frankly nonsense, unless the LDs collapse back to 1970s levels...
A cap on the number of times patients can visit their GP in a year is being considered by the Conservative Party, it emerged yesterday.
A Tory consultation document on local health provision asks activists whether they agree or disagree with the idea of an annual limit on GP appointments. The paper also asks whether evening and weekend appointments with GPs and consultants are a "luxury the country cannot afford".
Conservative opinion polls will often ask whether people want Ed Miliband to be Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean it's something the Conservatives are planning to try to bring about.
Edited to add: Although the way the Tory party is behaving lately maybe Ed Miliband PM _is_ what they're trying to bring about...
Polls say NO
Swingback says NO
Local Elections say NO
Which leaves us with a second hung parliament in succession in 2015. (first time since 1910)
Place your bets accordingly. FWIW, I aim to have a 5 figure sum on that outcome...
I can't be bothered to search for it but from memory it was based on a result of Con 39, Lab 34, LD ??.
Can't remember exactly but I think he was saying something along the lines that with Double Incumbency bonus that would mean no Con losses to Lab and then if Con pick up 19 from LD they get a majority. He may have also been allowing for SF which would mean only 16 Con gains from LD.
Con+Lab combined vote share up over 6% on 2010?
Pigs flying over Westminster, more likely...
Mr Shapps has described the Conservative Policy Forum as a "direct line from our members to Oliver Letwin MP, the minister for government policy...
Lab 40, Con 30, LD 10, UKIP 14
Per Anthony Wells (in Sunday Times):
"61% of people think David Cameron is not in control of his party, compared to only 24% who think he is.
On Tory modernisation, only 16% of people think David Cameron got modernisation right - 33% think he did not go far enough (including most Labour and Lib Dem voters), 32% think he went too far and abandoned too many traditional Tory subjects (including three-quarters of UKIP supporters)."
Economic Optimism is -30, the least negative it has been since May 2010.
http://www.conservativepolicyforum.com/
This is a means by which ordinary members get to consider and debate issues before policy is formed. The way it works is that, about once a month, a discussion paper on a given topic is issued, with a set of questions on specific policy issues raised. Recent topics include immigration, secondary education, university education, welfare reforms, etc. Usually the discussion papers are quite well researched and quite meaty. Members who are interested (anyone in the party can take part) meet in smallish groups, discuss the paper, and send their answers to the specific questions to CCHQ, who collate the answers and present a summary of the results to the relevant front-bench MP. The discussion papers, summary of responses and the reply of the minister are all published on the CPF website.
I don't know whether other parties have a similar way for party members to debate policy, but it works very well. (Incidentally, it's also a great answer to people who moan that the views of ordinary members are not listened to. Invariably, people who say this don't actually bother to take part).
So it's neither a polling exercise nor a policy proposal, but a discussion. Quite often the items up for discussion will include a range of options, some of which will be controversial; this is usually because the paper identifies a difficult problem and wants to test attitudes towards the difficult choices which might need to be taken to address them.
It's typical of the infantilising effect of the media on policy discussion that this particular paper is being attacked. Perhaps the party shouldn't bother to discuss anything.
Edit: The paper is here:
http://www.conservativepolicyforum.com/sites/www.conservativepolicyforum.com/files/local_health_discussion_brief.doc
How effective do you think the current coalition
government is at dealing with the threat from
extremism and terrorism?
Effective 41(0)
Ineffective 47(+9)
DK 12(-8)
How would you rate the chances of you or a
member of your family or a good friend being
killed or wounded in a terrorist attack? Do you
think the chances are...?
High 10(+2)
Low 54 (-5)
Almost non-existent 26(+7)
DK 11(-3)
Which of the following statements about British
Muslims comes closest to your own view? Compared to July 2005
Practically all British Muslims are peaceful, law-
abiding citizens who deplore Wednesday's killing as
much as everyone else. 20(-3)
The great majority are peaceful and law-abiding
citizens but there is a dangerous minority who feel
no sense of loyalty to this country and are prepared
to carry out, or at least to condone, acts of terrorism.
60(-4)
A large proportion of British Muslims feel no sense
of loyalty to this country and are prepared to
condone or even carry out acts of terrorism. 14(+4)
DK 6(+3)
Do you think the leaders of Britain's Muslim
community are doing the best they can to fight
terrorism, or are a significant number of of them
turning a blind eye to it?
The leaders of Britain's Muslim community are
doing the best they can to fight terrorism. 28
A significant number of the leaders of Britain's
Muslim communities are turning a blind eye to
terrorism. 50
DK 22
Thinking about Britain's involvement in
Afghanistan and Iraq, which of the following
best reflects your view?
Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has
increased the risk of terrorist attack, and was the
wrong thing to do. 40
Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has
increased the risk of terrorist attack, but was still the
right thing to do. 30
Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has
not really increased the risk of terrorist attack, but
was still the wrong thing to do. 7
Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has
not really increased the risk of terrorist attack and was the right thing to do. 4
None of these. 4
DK. 14
As you may know, there is a difference between
tax AVOIDANCE, whereby companies/people
use artificial but legal methods to minimise the
tax they pay, and tax EVASION, where
companies/people act illegally to pay less tax,
or no tax at all.
In general, do you think it is acceptable or
unacceptable to LEGALLY avoid paying tax?
It is acceptable to legally avoid tax 29(+3)
Unacceptable: 62 (-2)
DK: 8(-1)
Which party, if any, do you think would do the
most to cut down on tax AVOIDANCE?
Cons 15
LAB 21
LD 5
UKIP 8
None of them 31
DK 29
In recent months several well known companies
have been criticised for not paying enough tax
in the UK. Do you currently boycott the
products or services of any companies in
response to them not paying their fair share of
tax?
Yes, there are companies I actively boycott because
of they don't pay enough tax. 20
No, while I care whether companies pay tax I don't
really know enough about the subject or which
companies don't pay tax to boycott them. 42
No, the price and quality and other considerations
are more important to me than whether a company
pays tax. 25
Not sure. 13
Thinking specifically about some of the
companies that have been accused of not
paying enough taxation in the UK, which of the
following best applies to you?
AMAZON
I sometimes shop at Amazon: 79
I used to shop at Amazon but have recently stopped
doing so because of the issue of tax. 8
I used to shop using Amazon, but have stopped
doing so for other reasons. 3
I never shopped at Amazon anyway. 7
DK. 3
STARBUCKS:
I sometimes buy drinks or food from Starbucks. 22
I used to buy drinks or food from Starbucks but
have recently stopped doing so because of the
issue of tax. 13
I used to buy drinks or food from Starbucks, but
have stopped doing so for other reasons. 8
I never bought drinks or food from Starbucks
anyway. 55
DK. 2
GOOGLE:
Use: 87
Used but stopped - tax: 5
Used but stopped:2
Never used. 4
DK. 3
1. How to engineer a break without being blamed for potential destabilization economically and constitutionally.
2. Allows the LibDems a no fault detachment to attack new minority government with relative impunity.
3. Timing of GE effectively out of PM's hands.
4. HoC business effectively out of government hands.
5. Hands various Opposition groups stick "puts party before country."
Cameron & Tory party modernisation - Cameron did:
Not enough: -20
Too much: +53
Govt on terrorism threat:
Effective: -16
Ineffective: +24
Chances you/your family a victim of terrorist attack:
High: +9
Almost non-existent: -9
Muslims & terrorism:
Practically all peaceful: -15
Large proportion condone acts of terror: +22
Leaders doing best to fight terrorism: -18
Significant number turn blind eye: +31
On causes of terrorism:
Afghanistan/Iraq intervention: +20
I don't,. It would be interesting is someone had access to the answers if they have been asked previously .... I just think there is bound to be a knee jerk reaction after what has happened
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/pdc1opqf1w/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-240513.pdf
It'll be interesting to see whether Lotus (or anyone else, perhaps Perez) try and do a one stop strategy, or whether everyone will be on two stops.
I am boycotting Starbucks (though tbh the fact that I don't like their coffee helps make the decison quite an easy one). I would boycott Google and Amazon if it was a relatively easy thing to do - but, of course, it's not.
They both knew the dangers of mid term blues and "events dear boy events" that might cause waves but were relying on five years of stable government and better long term economic news to steer their fortunes to a safe port. This should remain their objective.
Instead some Conservative mutinous loons appear intent on a unstable rudderless ship that is no longer in control of their destination or caring if the next captain is Admiral Ed Bonkers and his merry crew of economic ship wreckers !!
Cameron remains more popular than his party. He also remains Prime Minister with the ability to control the agenda that gives. Those that want to break up the Coalition should think about whether their chances of keeping their jobs would be enhanced by Prime Minister Miliband taking over, passing some populist spending rubbish and then going to the country. There is more than one way to make a majority in this Parliamennt.
This really is stupid and self defeating. Some tories really need to get a grip.
While UKIP were founded on opposition to EU membership, the single issue that has done the damage to the Conservative party is gay marriage, and now Christopher Booker has pointed out that even this has it's roots in European schenanigans ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10080015/Its-time-we-knew-the-real-gay-marriage-story.html ).
Never glad confident morning again Cameron.
I wonder how many of them drive gas guzzlers. They should be doing so. Driving anything else, or using public transport is avoiding tax.
Generally reasonably level-headed responses apart from, as EiT notes, the statistically paranoid belief that respondents are at some significant risk of terrorist attack. But the authorities tend to overplay these things too. I remember all waste bins being removed from the local Attenborough railway station when fears about the IRA spiked - the general local feeling was that if the worst the IRA could do was blow up a rubbish bin in our sleepy station, the reaction would be more derision than fear.
Thanks for the overnight corrections from EiT and MikeL - was too lazy to look up Maggie's result. Impressive how close Heseltine got - wonder how things would have worked out if he'd won? Would he have been more or less effective against Tony than John Major?
Cameron and other senior Conservative made clear their support for gay marriage over 3 years ago when Ukip were polling very poorly.
Whether Mr Booker is an impartial arbiter of gay law reforms and the EU is a matter of debate but I'd think it's not a view that carries much weight in those European countries that have already approved the measure !!
I'm not against legal tax avoidance. But this gaming of the international rules seems rather gratuitous. It needs to be stopped, but that will need international agreement.
But what gets me are the hordes of mindless Apple fanbois. I nipped into the Apple store yesterday for a quick laugh, - the store was bustling with idiots willing to pay a large surplus for a logo and image.
I think we should instantly put a 25% tax on all Apple products - firstly to regain the tax they are not paying (if the US government does not want it, then we might as well have it), and secondly as an idiocy tax against the people stupid enough to buy their products.
Needless to say, :-)
What happens if I put extra money in my pension. I'm mid 50s, had to sell the house a couple of years ago because the business went bad, it is picking up again now.
Should I be putting maximum business earnings into a pension (I'm a contractor) and not paying any tax? Or is that immoral. I am actually in this position.
Kindly spend more time reading posts and not inventing your own facts.
Sorry Nick, but I think that comment is particularly stupid.
IANAE, but I thought the dangers of litter-bin bombs is that few people ever check them (whereas an abandoned bag might well be noticed), the often-metal casing provides extra shrapnel, and the fact the IRA did use them.
Two children died in the Warrington bombing, where the bombs were put inside litter bins. Dozens others were injured. Someone got killed in another litter bin bomb at Victoria Station in 1991. Hardly just blowing up a bin.
Therefore removal, although annoying, did make some sense.
(Edit: the reply is to Nick, not MikeK. Blame morning idiocy on my part)
The signs are everywhere. New schools and hospitals massive improvements in infrastructure and a social liberalism no one could have predicted.
As Cameron is increasingly looking like a vacuous charlatan born with a silver spoon in his mouth the reputation of the son of the manse could enjoy an unexpected renaissance.
Discussing this with a retired NHS manager a few weeks ago, he said it was immoral to do that, people shouldn't be allowed to avoid tax in that way. ''What about your pension?", I asked. The NHS paid for that, so it is OK for me, not for you. Aha, I understand.
Just the minor inconvenience of bankruptcy and at least 50 years of misery and unrivaled poverty we face whilst trying to pay the debts he ran up during that brief period.
We pray that our dearly beloved Roger who is in want of a book on UK economic history 2005-2010 no longer suffers.
We pray dear Lord that Roger returns soon to the bosom of the PB family and there is once more able to take up his role as anti-tipster of our humble community.
Amen.
Mercedes are at the centre of a technical row in Formula 1 after doing a three-day tyre test between the Spanish and Monaco grands prix.
In-season testing in F1 is forbidden and Red Bull and Ferrari are considering a protest against Mercedes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22672228
For anyone sad interested, a summary of the rules can be found at http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8713/
(Edit: more details at the Autosport website: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107671 Whether what happened was in the rules or not is way above my pay scale, and I can see both sides of the argument. It probably comes down to a comma in the regulations somewhere...)
Additionally governments and indeed backbenchers bring measures to parliament outwith any manifesto and parliament decides on such measures. The HoC has very clearly decided on a government free vote on the issue of gay marriage.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/05/25/139218/worlds-biggest-agile-software-project-close-to-failure
Hhhmmm .... A most unedifying spectacle .... Pass, thanks all the same.
Roger, most of this was put in place by Labour, the Tories scrapped some, the PFI ones, because the build that has gone through will soon be Privatised. Along with Mail, Rail, Water and Police, the NHS as already gone and Education will be next alongside Royal Mail. It's all in here; http://www.andrewlansley.co.uk/newsevent.php?newseventid=21 And this was 2005.
"The Mail on Sunday has extracts from Ann Widdecombe's memoirs - Howard 'a gloating bully', Cameron 'obsessed with his image', her Peerage vetoed over her opposition to hunting. More here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330986/The-wrath-Widdy-Ann-Widdecombe-brands-Michael-Howard-gloating-bully-blasts-Cameron-obsessed-image-explosive-new-book.html"
Good old Ann! She's suddenly become my favourite Tory.
We have been here before. NO Govt could govern if had to stick to its manifesto down to the last letter, circumstances dictate otherwise..., and your hero Blair did not have a war in Iraq in the Labour Manifesto but he still went ahead with it on very dubious evidence..
For instance, I bet she's not in favour of gay marriage. In her eyes Cameron will not be a Conservative.
It's a good job that her sort of views are dying out amongst the general population...
With respect to Tory backbenchers, I have said before that their bolshiness is setting the agenda,and to that extent is successful. At times I wonder about them though. It looks as though they are suffering from some cognitive dissonance caused by the fact that the Tories failed to win a majority at the last election, yet Cameron managed to become PM.
Then what ?
A minority government at the mercy of every backbench oddball and malcontent.
Being criticized on everything by Labour, LibDems and UKIP.
Unable any more to blame everything on Gordon Brown.
Having to sort out all the problems they (and other governments) postponed before 2015.
Sounds like political hell to me.
Very trite, a select few are coining it in as ever , the majority are suffering. Smart ar**s like you are typical
of the "I am all right jack" rich twats beggaring the country at large whilst lining their own pockets.
Where are the improvements in infrastructure ?
Where are the new power stations and transport networks ?
A potemkin village of buy-to-let flats and PFI buildings in metropolitan areas is neither unrivalled prosperity or improvements in infrastructure.
Not good for the image of the Conservative party when a posh leadership relies on posh supporters. The whole image seems to be one of "know your place and don't talk back". The underlying arrogance being exuded, intentionally or not, is more damaging to the Conservatives than any number of policy failures.
If there's one word which the Conservatives NEED to be assoicated with its 'aspiration'.
At the moment the one word the Conservatives ARE associated with is 'privilege'.
For all he knew I might have been in agreement with all of UKIP's other policies. But for him, that one policy was enough to tell me to p*** off and vote for someone else.
It wasn't exactly mature politics.
UKIP is wooing Old Labour ;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330871/Now-UKIP-leader-Nigel-Farage-sets-sights-working-class-Labour-voters.html
Neither did the likes of Douglas-Home or Douglas Hurd. They might have appeared rather grand and somewhat out of touch but they never exuded the petulant arrogance that the Cameroons and their supporters do.
Its one thing being born into a more privileged position in life but people with real class don't think themselves better or need to think themselves better than others because of it.
But the Cameroons wallow in a "I'm superior to you and I want you to feel inferior" mentality. The arrogance and insecurity which the Cameroons suffer from REQUIRES everyone else to feel inferior.
That's the mentality which causes revolutions and that's what we're now seeing on the political right.
But two factors still remain: the party only has one real main media man - Farage himself - there is no strength in depth with the media (a problem the Greens also have).
Secondly, if they are going to get any MPs they have to do their utmost to get strength on the ground, something the Lib Dems excel at.
(*) I think his tactics are often questionable, however.