Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is a good moment to recall the MP stage of the 2001 Tory
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is a good moment to recall the MP stage of the 2001 Tory leadership election when Portillo missed the cut by just one vote
The very first time the CON leadership election procedure that we are seeing at the moment was used was in 2001 in the aftermath of Tony Blair’s second successive landslide general election victory.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Yes, Portillo could have projected a moderate Conservative alternative to Blair but the Labour Majority of 165 was too big for the Tories to overturn it. It has to be remembered the Tories only had 166 seats in the 2001 GE. The LD would also have been unlikely to assist the Tories in 2005 even in a hung parliament as the then leader Charles Kennedy was notoriously anti-Tory even in the Coalition years.
I doubt Portillo would have opposed the Iraq war, unlike Ken Clarke who did!
The other feature of this period was the economy was doing well with full employment and rising living standards/ average earnings. Tony Blair said of the 2005 election in a post PM interview that the 2005 GE was an election the Labour party could not lose. What he meant was the Tories could not possibly overturn the Labour majority given the number of Labour incumbents and the underlying fundamentals that were so strongly in Labour's favour. He was not being complacent or arrogant but knew the campaigning constraints the Tories or Labour have in targeting the rivals seats. The LD despite the Iraq war were only ever going to nibble at the edges and so could be practically ignored as a threat.
I write the above as someone who Voted Tory in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
I do think disenfranchising people so they can't elect the people who set their laws is evil. That is the backstop.
I don't want to see people get killed but lets swap the subject matter. If al'Qaeda said we have to implement Sharia law and ban women from voting and driving or they will implement a bombing campaign . . . would you be prepared to ban women from voting and driving etc?
If you're not prepared to ban women from voting, how is that any different to me not being prepared to ban NI from voting?
Seems naive now, of course. But that was before people understood how much New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
Will we ever be rid of May and Hammond's doom and gloom?
It could well be Hunt is Portillo this time and Gove will play the IDS and knock him out by the narrowest of margins after he was previously heading for the membership vote. Boris like Clarke should come top in the final round but this time is more in touch with the members' views than the former Chancellor so should win
IDS was warmongering with Cheney & Wolfowitz before the dodgy dossier was a twinkle in Campbell's eye.
Clarke however might have got a hung parliament as lots of LDs would have 'lent' him their votes as he opposed the Iraq War unlike Blair. Labour would still have come first but it might have hastened the Brown premiership
I think we are seeing a similar dynamic now, but it's based on a more obviously false premise.
I can never understand the obsession (anti) with Europe.
It is true if you are clever and want to get on in the Conservative party, the best thing to do is mention opposition to Europe and you will have them eating out of your hand!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/19/rollout-of-compulsory-civic-service-for-young-people-in-france-sparks-criticisms
The horrors of wearing a polo t-shirt with a logo on it....outrageous.
Then....um....ah....it's...complicated.....
It’s astonishing the levels of denial amongst some Leavers . Do you seriously think you can leave a 45 year trade relationship and skip off into the sunset without a care in the world.
Wil you be telling the farmer who goes out of business because of tariffs to stop whining .
A simple question ? Please explain how a farmer can compete and sell his lamb into the EU with a 40% tariff ?
And no believing in Brexit isn’t the answer !
Best not let Grand Brexit Inquisitor Farage hear you say that.
Good night all.
He takes the Martini approach to elections, any time, any place anywhere.
I realise I've said this so often I've become a cliche, but that really is how they will handle it.
All the Eighties backgrounds are interesting. People were certainly a lot thinner back then.
If Hunt somehow gets knocked out in the next round, Javid could unexpectedly find himself in the final two if the Johnson team's determination to vote tactically against Gove continues to be their policy.
I feel like everyone here acts so outraged that I'm not prepared to disenfranchise NI voters to avoid the risk of terrorism.
But nobody ever answers the alternative as to whether they would disenfranchise women to avoid the risk of terrorism.
Cancelling Brexit unless it is the will of the voters is disenfranchising the UK voters so that isn't an answer either.
Either the risk of terrorism is so atrocious we must be prepared to sacrifice our fundamental human rights to avoid it ... or our hard fought liberties and human rights are more important than the threat of terrorism.
When the threat is Islamic terrorism the refrain is globally that we must not sacrifice our liberties . . . There is no difference here. The right to elect the people who set your laws is the most fundamental of all liberties.
The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.
If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?
IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.
Labour itself is split with many of its Remainers now voting LD or Green
Ultimately descends into a debate about new kitchens...
(start from 33.33)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxashFApz28
Night.
Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?
If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125574963
In any case, you are perfectly relaxed about a small majority taking away fundamental rights currently enjoyed by millions of UK citizens, so your opposition to the tyranny of the majority is clearly quite selective.
You can't vote to abolish democracy. Just because one sectarian group ones to remove the rights of another sectarian group does not mean that tyranny of the majority is OK. One person, one vote.
A worrying number of MPs are backing Boris Johnson mainly because others are"
(£)
https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/06/19/the-boris-bubble-that-threatens-britains-conservatives
People who emigrate and choose to live in a foreign country and haven't gained citizenship aren't able to vote, but that was their choice. Nobody else took that right away from them. That's not the same as UK nationals living in the UK being unable to vote in UK elections.
No fundamental human rights currently being enjoyed will be removed.
Foreign nationals who have voluntarily migrated and not taken citizenship are different.
(Plus, that might be a southern England thing? I know behavior varies from place to place)
Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?
Hint: if it's contingent on citizenship, it's not fundamental.
However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.
However that isn't the proposal.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Everyone has a right to vote in the government of their own country, not other countries. If you're not a citizen it is not your nation.
The backstop violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. NI's government will be the EU but NI voters won't get to take part in the government as they won't be able to freely choose representatives.