Are The Tories Going To Do It Again?
Discussion
The main thing that seems to have come out of this Tory conference is the emergence of David Cameron as a credible force in the leadership election.
Davis appears to be a busted flush and whilst I believe that Clarke is the only sensible choice I am sure the members would reject him if they possibly could. Not for Davis perhaps but for Cameron.....
The best reception at the conference was reserved for William Hague who is, in my opinion, far and away the person best equiped in terms of intellect and oratorial ability to take on Labour. But he's been and gone and says he won't come back. In 1997 he took the job when there was no credible alternative and when he was far too inexperienced and it finished his political career.
Will they make the same mistake with Cameron? For his sake I hope not.
>> Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 7th October 09:30
Davis appears to be a busted flush and whilst I believe that Clarke is the only sensible choice I am sure the members would reject him if they possibly could. Not for Davis perhaps but for Cameron.....
The best reception at the conference was reserved for William Hague who is, in my opinion, far and away the person best equiped in terms of intellect and oratorial ability to take on Labour. But he's been and gone and says he won't come back. In 1997 he took the job when there was no credible alternative and when he was far too inexperienced and it finished his political career.
Will they make the same mistake with Cameron? For his sake I hope not.
>> Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 7th October 09:30
I don't believe he's ready either, but they could be viewed as being in a bit of a no-win situation; none of the ones with enough experience are up to the job, and the only one who could be up to the job in the future doesn't have enough experience. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Shame Hague won't come back...he has to be the best by far of the current options.
Shame Hague won't come back...he has to be the best by far of the current options.
I was never impressed by Davies, neither the look nor sound of him. And that's how people vote - on what people look and sound like. If you can't make a blinding speech, sorry, you're out, because that's what the public judge you on.
I'm torn between Clarke, the heavyweight bruiser but people will say is tainted by the Thatcher years (the Labour brick-throwing machine will have plenty of ammo there), or Cameron, who arrives with a clean sheet and performed very well, but has no track record that voters are aware of. Still, he has 5 years to make an impact.
Hmm!
I'm torn between Clarke, the heavyweight bruiser but people will say is tainted by the Thatcher years (the Labour brick-throwing machine will have plenty of ammo there), or Cameron, who arrives with a clean sheet and performed very well, but has no track record that voters are aware of. Still, he has 5 years to make an impact.
Hmm!
Cameron has several advantages that Hague did not:
Blair and his henchmen were not discredited to the extent they now increasingly are;
He is not bald ;
He did not appear at the Tory conference as a teenager;
He doesn't have an unfortunate voice.
Three of these are superficial and silly reasons, but a large part of the electorate is superficial and silly.
Blair and his henchmen were not discredited to the extent they now increasingly are;
He is not bald ;
He did not appear at the Tory conference as a teenager;
He doesn't have an unfortunate voice.
Three of these are superficial and silly reasons, but a large part of the electorate is superficial and silly.
Zod said:
Cameron has several advantages that Hague did not:
Blair and his henchmen were not discredited to the extent they now increasingly are;
He is not bald ;
He did not appear at the Tory conference as a teenager;
He doesn't have an unfortunate voice.
Three of these are superficial and silly reasons, but a large part of the electorate is superficial and silly.
Nail hit on head. Unfortunately this is the level that most of the pondlife tend to use to "judge" a politician
wolves_wanderer said:
Zod said:
Cameron has several advantages that Hague did not:
Blair and his henchmen were not discredited to the extent they now increasingly are;
He is not bald ;
He did not appear at the Tory conference as a teenager;
He doesn't have an unfortunate voice.
Three of these are superficial and silly reasons, but a large part of the electorate is superficial and silly.
Nail hit on head. Unfortunately this is the level that most of the pondlife tend to use to "judge" a politician
Because Churchill being bald really held him back to..
>> Edited by Dakkon on Friday 7th October 10:49
wolves_wanderer said:
Cameron has several advantages that Hague did not:
Blair and his henchmen were not discredited to the extent they now increasingly are;
He is not bald ;
He did not appear at the Tory conference as a teenager;
He doesn't have an unfortunate voice.
Three of these are superficial and silly reasons, but a large part of the electorate is superficial and silly.
Nail hit on head. Unfortunately this is the level that most of the pondlife tend to use to "judge" a politician
Really, really hate to agree but I have to. Churchill wouldn't have stood a chance these days.
Zod said:
Cameron has several advantages that Hague did not:
Blair and his henchmen were not discredited to the extent they now increasingly are;
He is not bald ;
He did not appear at the Tory conference as a teenager;
He doesn't have an unfortunate voice.
Three of these are superficial and silly reasons, but a large part of the electorate is superficial and silly.
Superficial and silly but important none the less. In this televisual age image is very very important. Hague today, with 8 years more experience under his belt would stand a much better chance than he did then.
But for now I can think of no better image for the new 21st Century caring sharing Conservative party than to be led by ............................
an Old Etonian.
For all those championing Clarke
He hasn't shown much commitment to the cause has he?.
Of the three leaders we have had since the Tories lost power at least two have offered him a senior shadow cabinet post and he turned them down.
What has he been doing to oppose Labour, or indeed to have any contribution to politics whatsoever?.
In Churchill's wilderness years he maintained an active role in politics.
He hasn't shown much commitment to the cause has he?.
Of the three leaders we have had since the Tories lost power at least two have offered him a senior shadow cabinet post and he turned them down.
What has he been doing to oppose Labour, or indeed to have any contribution to politics whatsoever?.
In Churchill's wilderness years he maintained an active role in politics.
JagLover said:
In Churchill's wilderness years he maintained an active role in politics.
whats the difference between an active polictical role and an active polictical role that is reported?
staying out of politics for the last few years could be exactly what the tories need. for instance, he was against iraq which seems to be the popular thing, and he cannot be tarred with any brush from previous failed leaders.
unrepentant said:
But for now I can think of no better image for the new 21st Century caring sharing Conservative party than to be led by ............................
an Old Etonian.
This is the tragedy. You - and most others - discriminate on background. It is no better than saying 'I'm not voting for him because he went to the local Comp.' What happened to meritocracy? Vote for the best leader, not the school he went to.
WHY should a prospective leader have to dumb down? Do we really want him to wear trainers, baseball cap and bling jewellery so he can mix with the electorate and loo at home on a sink estate? Do we want a pikey for a leader? How about a 'celebrity'?
If you're saying that a person should not be chosen because he went to a certain school, that is tragic for the whole country.
simpo two said:
But for now I can think of no better image for the new 21st Century caring sharing Conservative party than to be led by ............................
an Old Etonian.
This is the tragedy. You - and most others - discriminate on background. It is no better than saying 'I'm not voting for him because he went to the local Comp.' What happened to meritocracy? Vote for the best leader, not the school he went to.
I totally believe in meritocracy.
But I live in a safe rural Tory seat and have voted Tory all my life. They don't need to appeal to me. They need to appeal to the great unwashed and having a leader who makes Alec Douglas-Home look common won't cut the mustard, I fear.
Whether we like it or not image is vital in today's politics.
Alex said:Liam Fox wuld get a very solid 30% or so in a General Election. He might get some of the BNP votes on top, but nobody else who is not a confirmed dyed in the wool Tory would vote for a Tory party led by him.
Based on content, I thought Liam Fox's speech was the best. Could he come up on the rails to be a front-runner?
Zod said:
Cameron has several advantages that Hague did not:
Blair and his henchmen were not discredited to the extent they now increasingly are;
He is not bald ;
He did not appear at the Tory conference as a teenager;
He doesn't have an unfortunate voice.
Three of these are superficial and silly reasons, but a large part of the electorate is superficial and silly.
Prof Beard has the following advantages:
Blair and his henchmen were not discredited to the extent they now increasingly are;
He is bald, but has a magnificant beard;
He did not appear at the Tory conference as a teenager;
He doesn't have an unfortunate voice. (He has a wonderful deep authoritative tone)
Three of these are superficial and silly reasons, but a large part of the electorate is superficial and silly, so the fact that the Prof is a far-left socialist shouldn't matter either?
I'm up for it - lets have "New Tory" and steal the left ground whilst it's unoccupied!
Prof Beard
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff