politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says “look to the outsiders for Cameron’s su
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says “look to the outsiders for Cameron’s successor”
The clock is ticking on David Cameron’s leadership. As delegates meet for the first Conservative conference of his last term, minds will already be turning to the question of who will succeed him. It’s probably far too soon to be doing so.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Eurotunnel has suspended all train services between Folkestone and Calais due to a "massive intrusion" of over 100 migrants.
I fear I must decline on behalf myself and Mike Smithson.
Our impending takeover and worldwide expansion in the coming years of the Belgravia Hair Centre will surely be a more pressing endeavour.
Interesting, but given some of her activities, not surprising, that Priti Patel’s name is no longer mentioned
The same factor almost certainly writes off Boris, who just doesn't seem to get along at all with his Parliamentary colleagues.
My personal instinct is that the next leader could, after a divisive referendum campaign, easily be a complete outsider who is a 'clean skin' tasked with healing the wounds. From that point of view, Stewart is a good suggestion. Or perhaps Dominic Grieve or Damian Green might re-emerge. (EDIT - Margot James might be another possibility, although that would certainly be a dramatic break with past views for the Conservative Party!)
With Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the opposition, the key question may be how many will try to stand. After all, assuming the Conservatives will win the next election, and quite possibly the one after that, but then will surely be in opposition again for a long time. So the next Conservative PM may be the last one this side of 2040 - for many possible candidates, it could be now or never.
He was perhaps also unfortunate that he was promoted far too soon and too young, like Hague - aged just 37 when he became foreign secretary, at a politically very difficult time, having been a junior FO minister more or less since entering Parliament (a very few months working with Joynson-Hicks at the Home Office apart) - and therefore hadn't much experience of setbacks, seeing them in perspective and how to cope with them emotionally. Even when he resigned in 1938, he was out of office only very briefly, and in 1940 returned to the foreign office.
But the final, crowning disaster was that he had only ever had one proper job in politics - Foreign Secretary - which also happened to be the most straightforward department to manage administratively requiring very little legislative work. To call him clueless on domestic affairs would be slightly unfair, but not too unfair. Had he spent time at Housing (Macmillan) the Treasury (Butler) or even at Health (Chamberlain) he would have had much more useful experience of government. Osborne and Brown have the same problem, albeit in a different way. They had/have become used to effectively dominating the domestic agenda from the Treasury and did/would struggle to adapt that to the far more nebulous and wider-reaching role of PM.
As it was, Heath complained that Eden had no idea of how to manage the party and obsessively micro-managed everything day and night (literally). When such a sick man started to behave in such a way there was only going to be one outcome. We saw the same thing with Brown, and I see no reason why Osborne would be different.
"UK accuses Russia over Syria strikes
Russia has carried out "unguided" bombing in Syria that has led to the deaths of civilians, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon says."
Trouble is word has got out that civilians have been killed in Afghanistan.
"The medical charity MSF says at least three of its staff were killed in the Afghan city of Kunduz after a clinic was hit by an air strike on Saturday. US forces were carrying out air strikes at the time. The Nato alliance has admitted the clinic may have been hit.
MSF says more than 30 staff are unaccounted for. The hospital had 105 patients at the time."
For a long time I thought that George Osborne had definitely decided that he didn't want the top job with the pressure and attention that goes with it. But it seems that David Cameron, by announcing that he will step down by the end of this Parliament, has forced his hand. His actions in the last few months indicate that he would prefer to go for it than see someone potentially less close than David Cameron come in above him and threaten his current power base.
Will he get it? He has to negotiate three chief threats: the EU referendum, the economy and the usual personal stuff that can derail any leadership bid. If he can get past those he is not far off a shoo-in, having the client base in Parliament to get on the ballot and the authority with the membership to extract votes. Those are three formidable obstacles but he is adroit (he may be surprisingly luke warm during the referendum vote) and I therefore make him an even money bet, with the single biggest risk to the bet being on the economy.
So, surprisingly, I find value in the front runner (as did Tissue Price the other day).
Otherwise, I agree with David Herdson. If it's not going to be George Osborne, all the value is with outsiders.
Who are the two that the Conservative MPs will put on the ballot.
Osborne is hurt by the precedent of the Brown disaster and poor media performance in terms of likeability, apart from possible EU problems or economic downturn.
Have MPs forgiven May entirely for the coining the phrase nasty party?
The MPs will want two choices on the ballot that will enhance the chances they have of winning in 2020. The Corbyn lesson will be Lamy by Tory MPs.
Therefore the choices breakdown to a calculation of how the MPs will break on a left right axis, an EU axis, a posh normal axis, and no doubt others too that enhance chances of popularity with the wider electorate
I am not saying such an outcome would be a good thing - look how Brown's obsession with having put Blair into Downing Street (even though he didn't) damaged their friendship - but I think it would be a possibility.
Therefore perhaps Osborne would only go for the leadership if his position weakens and he feels the need to try and control the party machine in order to strengthen and secure it? A speculative remark, but if you are correct it seems a possible outcome. After all, if he stands there are few circumstances where he wouldn't make the final two, and his high profile would surely give a him a good chance among the members.
Clearly, Patel or Greening are likeliest to succeed.
I largely agree with the outsiders premise, the only counter argument being that electing a leader in government is different to electing one in opposition.
Moreover, this will be the first time the Conservatives have held a leadership election in the immediate aftermath of a national referendum, and as DH notes, that's bound to have some bearing on the results.
Well pointed out - the pot calling the kettle black!
The hypocrisy of the West's support (presumably due to financial and other pressure from the criminal Saudi regime) for some of the armed terrorist gangs in Syria also needs to be pointed out. There is no fundamental difference between the Salafists of ISIL, Al Nusra and the "so called" Free Syria Army. DC's call for regime change in Syria is outright interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.
I'd just quibble over the "Labour, with its much shorter time in office" line. Since 1965 (the last 50 years), Labour's been in office for 5 years (1965-1970), plus 5 years (1974-1979) plus 13 years (1997-2010), for a total of 23 years against the Tories' 27.
"Shorter time in office", yes; "much shorter" isn't really justified IMHO.
[Pedant mode=OFF]
I do wonder what the Russian position regarding the Kurds is.
Edited extra bit: *to read
Of the loons Patterson is a good tip and Redwood may be the Corbyn of the Europhobes.
EDIT - amusing story on those lines about my old history teacher (a very fine teacher who is now a deputy head and should have been a head long ago in a saner system). He always used to teach us that Liverpool was our longest serving PM until Thatcher. When I pointed out that he had actually served for longer than Thatcher (over 14 years against less than 12) he said: 'Ah. Yes. Well, it felt like a lot longer!'
Except that nearly all the Labour leaders were class traitors and secret Tories of course.
The second point will doubtless be regarded as profoundly true by Corbyn admirers. If we add Blair to the Tory years, suddenly we're looking at 13 years to 37 years. (It wouldn't be true, but hey!)
"Fallon pointing finger at Russia over civilian deaths in Syria yet NATO have bombed an Afghan hospital earlier in the week.. It would help if Cameron had worked out what his Middle East policy was other than remove Assaad before events changed. Cameron shouldn't be given an easy ride over this."
A more incoherent policy from 'the West' is almost impossible to imagine. They have been training up various rebel groups to defeat the Syrian government who are currently the only barrier between civilization and Armageddon. What's more it seems the weapons being supplied to these rebels by the CIA are transferring with their owners to ISIS at an ever increasing rate
Russia seem to be Syria's only hope for any sort of salvation. All we can do is wish Putin luck and hope that he continues to ignore the the shrill voices of our feeble and useless leaders
As for us, Wenger and the players have, I think, been guilty of underestimating the Champions League. Leaving out Coquelin in Zagreb was unfathomable and we didn't look up for it on Tuesday night until we were losing.
I need to go lie down - and I've only just got up. Still, I can console myself that Dodd didn't mention that I've been saying this for months - so the sun probably still is in the sky and the magma underfoot...
I think looking at the track record of people chosen in opposition or near despair (like Howard) really doesn't tell us much about Cameron's successor. His successor will be PM and looking forward to an election against a muppet who the party will expect to give him an easy win. That is no scenario for a radical change of direction, quite the opposite.
So I disagree with David about looking for the outsiders. This will be an inside job from someone already in the Cabinet and fairly high profile. Like anitfrank I therefore think Osborne is good value. Things can go wrong in political careers and events may move against him but at the moment if he wants it he is on pole position with no one else in the first 3 rows of the grid.
*Though I did wonder about Eden and MacMillan and Douglas Home. I think he meant in recent times where the membership got a vote.
After Labour break the mould and go for Corbyn, you are suggesting the nation is not ready for a steady as to go continuity candidate? Especially if he is a successful one?
I note that despite some scare stories about China (whose growth anyway is always over stated) that world growth next year is predicted for only a small dip and the UK is leading the developed world for growth.
Of course, we are all assuming there will be an election, not a coronation, but I think that's a fairly safe assumption at the moment.
"Mr. G, not sure Assad's democratic legitimacy is necessarily watertight..."
Passing the mantle of Head of State from Father to son.....I wonder where he got that idea
This is the first time the members get to choose whilst we're in office.
The one I'm considering as next Tory leader is Michael Fallon.
Competent, Eurosceptic, assured, good media performer, he socked it to Ed Miliband during the election campaign.
With Jezbollah as Labour leader defence is going to be a very prominent issue and Fallon's going to become even more noticed.
The divide in the Middle East is between secular nationalists and Islamists. Both sides have plenty of atrocities on their records, but only one side is a threat to us.
When it comes to civil war by irregular forces civilian deaths are inevitable. If that is unacceptable then we should not get involved.
After 5years of Uncle Vince preening there is a lot to do there and I expected him to have a higher profile than he has. Still time but needs to put in the work and contribute to our economic success. Where has he been in the Steel crisis for example?
Gosh David. all that preamble to say, "hold your horses and keep your money in your pocket".
You are probably right though, in that the next Tory leader may be below the present political horizon. It all depends on the EU-Ref outcome.
As for Fallon, TSE, that man is just champing at the bit to have a go at Putin this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34432440 He would be the puppet par excellence for Obama or someone like him. His masters voice, writ large.
I think Roger is spot on here. I don't like Assad. I think he is probably guilty of all the horrible things thrown at him and I would love to see him deposed and stand trial at some point in the future.
But right now, with Russian support, he is the only chance going for defeating Isis and the other extremist groups and trying to bring some stability to the Middle East. It should have been with Western support but we were too busy trying to get rid of him and so adding to the problem.
History is full of examples where the West has supported and allied with unsavoury leaders because we need them to stand against a greater threat. We did it with Stalin in WW2 to oppose Hitler. The US have practically built their whole post war foreign policy on it by supporting nasty bits of work in the Third World to oppose communism. We did it with Saddam in the 80s to oppose Iran and even supported his invasion of Iran in 1980.
So it seems perverse to decide that Assad should be the exception to the rule when he is fighting against quite possibly one of the most serious threats to the West in many decades.
Fearsomely bright (Fulbright scholar).
Solidly right wing without being nuts (Bow Group Chair).
Untainted currently (i.e. no front line job).
EU-sceptic but business friendly.
An outsider
It doesn't win us any friends. It increases the number of migrants heading our way. It doesn't seem to increase the chances of genuinely friendly regimes.
Perhaps the only thing we can justify is trying to make sure the oil keeps flowing. (Somewhere our interests and Putin's diverge.)
I keep being told the Tories are stuffed full of talent. I don't see it. And neither does Mr Herdson, it seems.
"When it comes to civil war by irregular forces civilian deaths are inevitable. If that is unacceptable then we should not get involved."
I agree. Where do 'the West' get the idea that Bashir Assad is any worse than any of the groups they are supporting? Could it be just that he's an implacable opponent of Saudi Arabia our ally though recognized by everyone in the region as perhaps the most brutal and backward in the world?
The problem for Cameron and Co is that now the Russians are involved we are going to get a more rounded picture and questions are going to be asked not least about our rather bizarre alliances and I don't think the public are going to be too happy with the answers.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/business-secretary-sajid-javid-says-10183822
Maybe he has been looking in the wrong place.
He's a capable salesman, posh, young-looking and something of a blank canvas - all things voters seem to like (even if they say they don't). Best price 28/1 (generally less fancied than Gove, who I think is massively overvalued).
If you're punting around for value, Ed Vaizey is as long as 100/1
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
@faisalislam: 2. Crackdown on large charities "unethical" fundraising practices including a new watchdog, after Etherington review #cpc15
@faisalislam: And 3. direct attack on Corbyn/McDonnell with new policy curtailing councils pension/procurement boycotts of Israel/defence companies #CPC15
Dan Jarvis gets stick on here for not offering much beyond a back story, but it's hard to see how he differs that much from any of the names Mr Herdson talks about. Cameron and Osborne stand head and shoulders above the rest. Just as Blair and Brown did.
Re Fallon, Britain's defence policy is all over the place. That's not all his fault but he'll still carry the can if he's not moved. He's also more than a bit grey. Not necessarily a bar but nor is it a bonus.
Amazingly we can still qualify if we lose twice to Bayern, so long as the others win one each or draw both of their head to head
"Osborne is a big hitter - a pragmatic doer with a nose for the centre ground. I don't agree with him, but he has a clear view of the world and he delivers. No-one else comes close to him."
I think you're right. He's my favourite senior Tory by a distance. As time goes by and Cameron is increasingly exposed as a useless cloud of gas I find Osborne's clear thinking quite reassuring
If it wasn't for the very weird tastes of Tory selectors (IDS Hague Howard) I'd say Osborne was a certainty
Dave's always liked him since Hunt was Shadow minister for the disabled, he liked his calmness under fire during the phone hacking saga and crucially he stopped Labour from weaponising the NHS at the election though that might be down to Andy Burnham being really crap.
Up until the end of WW2 we stuck our noses into the affairs of these countries because of our Imperialist past and because of securing trade links and routes to our Imperial holdings. Unfortunately for the Middle East, just as the sun was setting on much of our Empire, oil assumed is preeminent place in Western economic well being. So from that point on the Middle East stopped being an Imperial stop over on the way to the riches of the East and assumed an importance of its own providing the fuel to run the post war world. even if that is now fading, we are still not yet at the point where we feel we can let go of the Middle East.
In addition we have these ridiculous neo-liberal/neo-con mashup concepts of righteous intervention as exemplified by the Blairite foreign policy that Cameron seems to have inherited. This has superseded the far more sensible policy of benighted (or rarely enlightened) self interest and means we are trying to run a moral foreign policy when neither side in these conflicts is interested in morals - at least not our morals - and when there is no moral action we can take that will make a blind bit of difference.
We either need to go back to acting solely in terms of our own national interests - as Russia does - or stay the hell out and try and limit the fallout and its impact on us.
What price Kevin to replace Dave?
( not 'tremendous knowledge' Dave')
If the referendum result is "In" (which still seems very likely, given the persistent small leads despite bad news and the disarray of the "Out" camp) and the economy hasn't tanked by the time of the selection, I think MPs are certain to make Osborne one of the candidates and he would then be odds on. 15/8 looks about right now, given those provisos. If either goes pear-shaped then all bets are off and I agree with David that it's very hard to see who will com to the fore. So I'd stay clear for now too.
I did a piece on Halfon back in May. I like him a lot.
Re Gove - I happen to agree with much of what he wants to do, he's very clever and funny and uses extreme politeness to insult people. However he's got that too-clever-by-half manner which makes him highly annoying in large doses. Def not a contender.
It is true that the vast majority of people who become PM mid-term are either Chancellor or Foreign Sec and I agree with those who say a lot depends on whether Osborne wants to stand. In fact, Osborne is rightly favourite, not least because of the lack of clear alternatives, but 15/8 is too short to my mind.