Will the Tories govern alone again?

There is a thoughtful article in tomorrow's Sunday Times from Michael Portillo.  While acknowledging that Cameron's handling of the Dyke affair was clumsy he explores the big reason why it happened - the Tories' belief that they need to form these sorts of surprising alliances if they are to prosper in Britain's new electoral landscape of coalition governments, growing use of proportional representation and the rise of the smaller parties.  ConservativeHome's own belief is that the party would be better attempting to defeat the Liberal Democrats (as the Scottish party are attempting to do) rather than prepare the ground for coalition but the party leadership revealed their instincts this week with the Dyke debacle.

Comments

[greg]

The Conservatives aren't planning for coalition. They are aiming to
1) attract LibDem voters
2) split the Liberal Party through toying with the idea of coalition.

The fact that a coalition might happen is an inevitable consequence of a hung parliament - and would damage the Libdems far more than the Conservatives.

[matt wright]

Agree with Greg above,

Matt

[C.McMichael]

I just ran across this site and, as a truly Conservative "Yank" (Southern U.S.), I am really encouraged to read the articles and comments here.

The pond just became so much smaller. :)

Keep up the good fight. The Conservative movement is based on reason, sound policy, and intelligent solutions; Libs got none of these. That is your strength and future.

[ToMTom]

The Conservatives have a geographical problem which pre-determines outcomes. They can win in the South of england, probably in the Southwest, but they will not add seats in the North and large parts of the Midlands......so they will be short of any majority in The Commons and can only hope that Labour is imn worse shape overall

[Old Hack]

Whether it be doing shoddy deals with Lib Dems;

Grouping constituencies rather than making a genuine effort to rebuild local organisation on a constituency by constituency basis;

Or seeking to deny members a vote in the selection of candidates;

Abandoning Tory principles to pander to the liberal prejudices of the media;

The Leadership of Party is engaged in short termism at the risk of backlash later.

A political party needs a grassroots as well as an elite.

We are disconnecting the two and in the medium to long term if we have built victory on poor foundations the whole edifice will crumble that much quicker.

One term of Conservative government could be all it takes wipe out a lot of the remaining local organisation we have.

Two terms and we'd lose a lot of our local government base.

Three and we're dead.

There is no easy way to rebuild after the damage we've suffered but I believe that modelling the party on New Labour may mean we suffer the same fate that awaits New Labour...

[TimberWolf]

But, C.McMichael, the Conservative Party is policy light. It just has a PR exercise. (Public Relations, not Proportional Representation).

[Curly]

There is much to be said for Timber Wolf's position, until serious policies are produced we are indeed a victim of our own imaging success. We have managed to change the image of the party to once again make it appealing to voters in most parts of England. However, to be in a position to regain control in Westminster we will need radical (and a bit more "righter than centre") ideals that will attract voters further to the north.

I cannot stomach the idea of forming partnerships, or doing deals with other parties, we ought to be strong enough in our convictions to be able to win elections on our own.

I'm going back to reading about that other loser in The Brownie.

[Richard North]

Final cover, presumably, will be a Lib-Lab-Con alliance, with the (sub-) parties deciding who will run in each seat (rather as we have here oop North) - thus avoiding all the unpleasantness and inconvenience of properly contested elections.

[Annabel Herriott]

Welcome, CmcMichael. Just remember, CH is an open site, so do have fun figuring out who are trolls, who are socialists, and which posts are the genuine article!!

[Brook Whelan]

I agree with the Conservative Home view in that we do need to beat the Lib Dems and not take the easy way out in the form of a coalition.

As a Party, we also need to fight any plans for extending proportional representation.

Proportional representation will be bad news not just for us as Conservatives, but will also represent a poor deal for voters.

[TomTom]

Having heard Hague The Vague on Rawnsley political show today I thought him incredibly complacent.

He just recites the mantras and is wholly unconvincing. It is pretty clear he has no answer to why the Conservatives lost 5 seats on Bradford Council in 2006, nor why people should vote Conservative rather than LibDem because they are in coalition in both Bradford and Leeds.

That leaves Conservatives heading for an upsurge in BNP or Green votes if people are displeased with Conservative policy or councils......but all Hague could utter was the popularity of Cameron in the North and that North and South were just the same....back to after-dinner speaking....since he is hardly infusing the North with fire

[Ash Faulkner]

We should be crushing the Lib Dems, not joining them. I don't see them being a party of government, but under our FPTP system, a third party like them could cause a lot of trouble.

We are liberals too, with a small l. We should be making the case for negative liberty and showing the Lib Dems for what they truly are: the most left-wing major party, without doubt.

It's right that we fight on ground that we have wrongly neglected: the environment and social responsibility. Cameron is right to do this. But we need to look at them from a distinctly Conservative view point, not a leftist one. We should also become the party of the local community.

If we want to get Lib Dem voters on our side, we should therefore 1) stick to the environment, but drop this Vote Blue, Go Green rubbish. Vote Green, Go Green is what true greens will be doing. 2) champion social/communal resonsibility, and take an interest in education, (absolute) poverty, single parents, et cetera. 3) support localisation - that should be the 'Big Idea', similar to privatisation in the 80s. I think this diversification of the public sector is the only way we can make it better short of privatising it.

We should not be putting up Grey Dyke as a Lib-Con candidate, and we should not be accepting that the Lib Dems are here to stay. If we play it right, we can wipe them off the map. But giving them ground is not the way to do that.

[Ash Faulkner]

TomTom, I saw him too. I was completely disappointed. To see him sat there saying 'We should try new ideas'...of course, but within reason! Unbelievable.

In a day and age where politicians are thought to be spineless, convictionless liars, we should be standing up, saying what we believe in (and saying alot, not just immigration, Europe and crime...but we shouldn't be dropping those, either!), and offering honesty and integrity after New Labour.

I don't know if anyone saw IDS on Question Time on Thursday, but his defence of Iraq was passionate and honest: he said, "I know it's not popular...I don't expect to be applauded..." and explained his case masterfully, and then ended with "That's why I think it was right, and I stand by that." And he was applauded, because he was being frank and open. It was inspiring (I never thought I'd describe him as that, I must say!). I recommend everyone checks it out, it's on the BBC website.

That is what we need. We need to fight territory we've ignored, and we need to stand up for what we believe in. I had a worried thought a few days ago. Cameron is leading the same party as Churchill and Thatcher. I could hardly believe it.

[top of the shot]

One fact that few people seem to mention is the changing demographics of the UK. We keep hearing that 4.5 million more people voted Conservative in 1992 than was the case in 2005.

No one seems to mention that around 2 million Brits now live somewhere else in Europe. Yes they can vote in UK elections for a few years, but few bother/want to register.

It does not take much common sense to work out that as the Conservatives usually attract more votes from Owner Occupiers, that it will therefore follow that a much larger section of these ex voters would have voted Conservative in the past.

Once you add in the new wave of immigrants into the UK, then we are in a negative situation. Like it or not, traditionally, first generation immigrants have not supported the Conservatives.

You only have to look at the way London has changed. Although we did well at the GLA elections, we cant seem to dislodge cuddly Ken and we have less than a quarter of London parliamentary constituencies, mainly in the very outer suburbs.

Gone are the days when we could expect to win, seat such as Hampstead, Dulwich, Streatham and any of the Lewishams - seats that we won in the 1980s.

[Matt Davis]

If the message is going to be Vote Blue Get Yellow then why on earth would any of these LibDem voters switch to us, they might just as well carry on as they are.The real and total failing of this half baked plan is that the voters who could return a majority Conservative government are out there, just as they were in the '80s and '90s.They now live in apathy land and are not intending to vote because "you're all the same". A truly visionary Conservative approach would be to be courting those people and offering them a reason to vote again and to vote Conservative. That is the way to get above 40% poll ratings and move forward to a Conservative government, not this nonsense of trying to turn left wingers around by selling out every principle of conservatism and destroying the party in the process.

[Edward]

This is all about seeming palatable to Lib Dem voters needed to beat Labour in marginal seats to give us the majority.

[Anonymous]

Matt, the 2005 Tory manifesto was quite right wing and a shift to the right yet got less votes than the 2001 GE and only managed to get us 190 seats. Why didn't these people come out to vote then? Does the party need to go further towards the right than that? It will lose more votes from the left if it does that IMO.

[Derek]

The Greg Dyke fiasco has let the cat out of the bag. The leadership had better change tack and fight for outright victory. Anything less and we are finished as a party. PR has been gradually coming in, which undermines the major parties, as it allows the smaller parties to have greater success. This, in turn, will lead to most administrations becoming coalitions. We must resist PR for Westminster elections or we may find the party splitting.

[ToMTom]

A lot of effort is being made to get Steve Hilton to vote Conservative !

[Gunther]

Derek, the Conservative Party is likely to split after losing the General election, if not before. Which way will you go, to support UKIP/BNP or to join the Liberal Democrats?

[Fred Baker]

With friends like Portillo, who needs enemies? We could do without his comments.

[Yet Another Anon]

Matt, the 2005 Tory manifesto was quite right wing and a shift to the right yet got less votes than the 2001 GE and only managed to get us 190 seats.
The Conservative vote in the UK as a whole increased from 31.6% of the Popular Vote to 32.3% of the vote - this was despite turnout going from 59.7% to 61.4%, at 8.8 million votes it was still well down on 1997 in absolute terms and only barely higher than the total number of votes Labour got in 1983 in the General Election (In 2001 the Conservatives actually got slightly fewer), UKIP increased their total vote by more than the Conservative Party, the main gainers in the election were the Liberal Democrats who saw the first actual increase in their total vote that they have had (the Alliance vote in 1987 was slightly down on that of 1983, the Liberal Democrat vote was lower in 1992 and again in 1997 and was only higher in percentage terms in 2001 but higher overall). The Conservatives actually got 198 seats in 2005 not 190.

There were major faults in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and there are major faults now - in 1997 the Conservatives were openly at war with themselves during the General Election campaign, they were doing Labour's work for it; in 2001 Oliver Letwin and William Hague appeared to disagree over public spending - William Hague's campaign seemed to fall apart with him in the end rolling out Margaret Thatcher to bring out Conservative voters making him look rather feeble as if he needed her support - she then said "The Mummy Returns" which brought a lot of laughs but didn't achieve anything for the Conservatives; then IDS had developed a coherent set of policies well thought out and firmly based on strong moral principles and Michael Howard abandoned these and went for some short slogans instead - Michael Howard also forced Howard Flight out even as a candidate for simply stating the truth that more efficency savings in public spending might be found - in all 3 cases the Conservative Party could easily have achieved 35% of the vote. In 2005 the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats could easily have harried the government enough to have lead to it being very close with perhaps a hung parliament - the Liberal Democrats were riding a rather undeserved wave of opinion with a leader who really was just not up to the job - in the end Labour miraculously won easily on a remarkably low vote, if anything Labour's low point was in 2003-04 and they seem to have revived since - David Cameron is very short on substance and it is not clear if there was even an election now 2 years into the parliament that the Conservative Party would be the largest party, at this point you would be expecting spectacular parliamentary by-election victories for the lead opposition party if they were expecting to be on course for a majority government or even having a chance of one but in fact the Conservative performance in the parliamentary by-elections since 2005 has not been good.

People are not going to be enthused by an argument between David Cameron and Gordon Brown over who is the closest representative of the legacy of New Labour and are likely to conclude that as one of the most powerful Chancellor of the Exchequer's in history with Prime Ministerial powers over 10 years that if they want the legacy of the past 10 years to continue it is most likely under Gordon Brown and there is a danger for David Cameron that neither the "Middle Way" voters he is now targeting or traditional Conservative voters will feel that he is standing for what they are - although I would expect some advance even though probably at Liberal Democrat expense mainly, there is a risk for David Cameron of falling between 2 stools.

[malcolm]

I wholly agree with the Editorial here. I thought the Portilo article wholly plausible and do wonder whether a desperate Brown will offer the Lib Dems PR in return for a little extra time in office sometime in the near future.
We should be making the case for FPTP and the huge disadvantages for the good government of Britain with PR not when we are presented with it but now!

[jorgen]

or we may find the party splitting

Let's hope so. After following the debates on this website the past months, it is clear to me that the "broad church" is way too broad.

[Rebecca]

You need FPTP for strong government, but PR by STV for good government. Which do you prefer?

[malcolm]

Really Rebecca? Please give us examples of the 'good government' you think have emerged from this form of voting.

[Rebecca]

STV is used for elections in the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Tasmania and the Australian Senate. It is used for local council elections, European Parliament elections and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. In New Zealand some local council elections are held using STV.

Which of these elections do not produce good government?

[Occasional Visitor]

It is said that the Opposition does not win an election;it is more that the Party in power loses one.

In England we seem to be risking an oddly different situation whereby the party in power is indeed heading for electoral punishment but may nevertheless remain the largest parliamentary grouping because of the fragmentation of the Opposition.

Remind me again, please, of the core principles of Conservatism; These seem to have gone adrift in a miasma of indecision and cynical pragmatism.

[Edward Lennox]

Watching the 1992 general election on BBC Parliament the other week reminded me of the clamour back then that Labour would never govern alone again and there would have to be a realignement of politics with Lab and the Lib Dems merging or working together etc etc... six months later came Black Wednesday, and a few years later Labour won the biggest landslide in living memory. Remember that when you hear all this defeatist talk about the Tories being doomed forever.

[Yet Another Anon]

You need FPTP for strong government, but PR by STV for good government
I think different systems for different levels of government and different countries may have different systems but equally valid reasons for having them relating to that country.

I rather favour the Alternative Vote for House of Commons elections with single member constituencies but candidates ranked in order - this was the system the Plant Commission came up with in 1994.

STV might suit Local Authority elections perhaps providing some competition for authorities where the composition of a governing administration is pretty much taken for granted even before the elections have taken place.

If there is to be a Second Chamber in Parliament there is actually not neccessarily any reason why constituencies should be geographically based - they could be based on age or gender, people's own perceived ethnicity even. Might even be best to base it then on a straightforward list system.

If you wanted really strong government then elections could be simply for a government and opposition or based on national percentages of the vote with the first party getting a fixed proportion of the seats based on the percentage vote they got but based on some kind of formula - so that for example it could be ensured that where one or two parties exceeded 35% of the vote then the first party won an overall majority and if neither did perhaps then neither got a majority and then the other seats could be distributed among the other parties according to their percentage of the rest of the vote, the numbers of seats for the first party could be fixed to limit majorities in situations where the party with most votes had won less than 50% of the vote, also stopping the party who did not get the most votes from winning an overall majority. There are many different ways that electoral systems could work.

[MH]

Exactly what type of Conservative Party does David Cameron want to lead?

He appears to want one which has nothing to do with the membership, or for that matter, with the British electorate.

What does he want - a hereditary or appointed House of Commons?

Following the pattern of Cameron’s proposed reforms, why bother with democracy at all?

That appears to be the thrust of the so-called reforms.

Such a view is extremely cynical and will result in the destruction of our Party - the electorate will see through the sham - the British people want substance in their politicians, not spin.

Greg Dyke is not a Conservative - it is therefore inconceivable that Conservatives could be asked to back him. It is outrageous that David Cameron should be seeking to foist someone like Greg Dyke on the Conservative Party.

Michael Portillo is correct - David Cameron has severely undermined and embarrassed every Conservative who put their hat in the ring to stand for London's mayor. For that gross misjudgement he should apologise, indeed, he should resign along with that cabal of privileged prats who have usurped power in our party.

The problem is that the Parliamentary Party is completely out of touch with their own grass roots and the country at large. That is the result of electing Eton/Oxbridge hacks who have never held a proper job.

Portillo is very wrong on one point - we do not need "professional politicians", ie. those who graduated from Oxbridge to Central Office to become MP's - these “bright young things” are the real problem - we need more experienced politicians, those who have worked for a living, those who can speak to ordinary folk up and down the country.

It is not a surprise that these professional hacks want state funding. It is also not a surprise that they continually seek to gerrymandering the electoral process. They simply want the right to be in parliament without ever having to bother with constituency associations or the need to win the support of the electorate. They want rotten boroughs controlled by an established House of Commons aristocracy. This is unacceptable in a democracy.

If we, as the Conservative Party, ever want to be in power again then we must win that right by the strength of our ideas, by the superiority of our policies, and by the conviction of our leadership. We need adults in charge, not these kids.

The Conservative Party was a broad church - that was why we were the natural party of power - when the extremist anti-Europeans asserted themselves against John Major they pushed our Party into an ideological wilderness. We have been in that wilderness for 10 years.

During that 10 year period we have seen a Labour Government take our country into an illegal war in Iraq - which only a few principled members of our Party opposed - we have witnessed a ruthless assault on civil liberties - again only opposed by a few honourable men and women in our party - we surrendered principle to the Liberal Democrats because of the professional political hacks who put expediency first.

The only thing which held back sensible folk from joining the Liberal Democrats was the realisation that their economic policies were a nonsense. Regrettably now, the Liberal Democrats are starting to look more sensible on the economy than the Conservatives - and, however much one may deplore Labour's policies on a number of fronts - Gordon Brown looks far more credible than George Orborne.

So, lets cut the environmental guff, forget about hugging a hoodie, advocating gay rights, and embracing a bloated civil service. These are not part of a traditional Conservative agenda, and they are not important to the vast majority of the British electorate. These are peripheral issues that are important only to fringe groups.

What the British public want, and what we as the Conservative Party must ensure we give them are clear policies that will grow our economy, create jobs, cut taxes, and ensure that we have laws that are firm and fair and apply equally to all; and that our international policy is principled and clearly in our national interest.

It matters that we are a broad church, it matters that we are a national party, only as the Conservative and Liberal Unionist Party can we ever win power back again, only if we reflect our roots deep within the history and culture of our nation will we be deserving of power.

[Yet Another Anon]

Not sure that the Liberal Democrats actually have a single form of PR they favour - I remember David Owen advocating STV including Multi member constituencies and David Steel actually favouring single member constituencies with something more like Alternative Vote. Roy Jenkins proposals in 1998 advocated AV Plus where the existing boundaries would be used but with an AV System in each constituency as recommended by the Plant Commission but with a top up of 100 seats on a list system and then presumably at the following Boundary Review the number of single constituency seats would be reduced by 100.

But what system since then has been favoured by the Liberal Democrats - I can see Gordon Brown maybe favouring some kind of topup to FPTP because it might help Labour get it's vote out in safe Labour seats, or even AV Plus. STV though surely would significantly reduce the demographic advantages that Labour has electorally at the moment over the Conservative Party as well as over other parties.

I doubt that STV would get through the House of Commons though - an overwhelming majority of Labour and Conservative MP's would be opposed meaning that unless the Liberal Democrats had over 200 seats already they would have no chance making up the neccessary numbers to get it through.

[Yet Another Anon]

which only a few principled members of our Party opposed
There were principled and unprincipled people on both sides over the issue of regime change in Iraq, in fact the Liberal Democrats posing over it was pretty unprincipled and pretty shoddy.

People supporting the war still in many cases had arguments against the war strategy, the failure to commit sufficent numbers of troops or adequately fund defence. There was too much pandering to the sensibilities of liberals by the media over the rights of people who the Intelligence Services and police have good reasons to suspect of being involved in terrorist activity including the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, but also pandering for liberal pacifist tendencies generally and Socialists with sympathies for the Ba'athist regime who should have been removed long ago, certainly after they embarked on chemical attacks on Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980's.

[TimberWolf]

Yet another Anon - The Electoral Reform Society (www.electoral-reform.org.uk) recommends the STV form of Proportional Representation. Incumbent MPs of any party may fear for the loss of their seats and oppose STV, and so voters who want to be better represented must make it their business to fight for reform.

[MH]

"regime change" under the UN Charter is illegal, and it is illegal in International Law. Not even Blair justified the illegal war in Iraq on the basis of "regime change". That argument has only been put forward by Bush. As to "pandering to the sensibilities of liberals" that is an argument that runs counter to our own commitment to the Rule of Law as a fundamental principle of our democracy. We do not arrest people on the basis of the suspicions of police and Intelligence Services, we arrest them when we have evidence. We charge people in open court, and the burden is on the State to prove to prove an accusation beyond reasonable doubt. These are the fundamental principles of English Law. These are the principles that the British public expect British politicians to uphold. Our politics must be based on principle, not expediency.

[Gunther]

The Liberal Democrat opposition to the Iraq war was principled, as was the Liberal Party opposition to the Suez war.

[Matt Davis]

Anonymous @ 14.24 (shame that the few of you who do support the current flailing about in the dark never seem to want to identify yourselves;) It isn't a question of having a more or less right wing manifesto as you ssem to think I am saying, it is a question of having a coherent principle based platform that is obviously different to the Lib/Lab quasi socialist, big government consensus that is dishonestly referred to as the "middle ground", which it isn't. We will never return to a majority in parliament whilst the fastest growing group of voters are the won't votes, who have been totally turned off by the lack of beliefs, principles, honesty and competence in Government. They don't want to be given such a limited choice of vaguely different spins on the same old New Labour claptrap that has already turned them off so very firmly.

Government by focus group doesn't work, has never worked and is never going to work.

[Yet Another Anon]

Incumbent MPs of any party may fear for the loss of their seats and oppose STV, and so voters who want to be better represented must make it their business to fight for reform.
PR is a misleading term because no system can represent everybody, there will always be people who's wishes are in some way not represented because nobody they votes for gets into a position of power, a PR system could still lead to a government that permanently excluded certain parties.

Parties stand on policy platforms, as it is parties frequently even with majorities have to abandon things they stood on because they can't get them through but with "PR" systems the tendency is for original positions to be compromised on after an election to the point where the eventual policies are unrecognisable in comparison with the original ones and tiny parties are given concessions in exchange for their votes in confidence motions that may be of little interest to an overwhelming majority.

Although many MP's in safe seats are swayed in the issue of what electoral system they support by their own personal interests, there are also many for whom it is an issue of ensuring strong government or clearly accountable government in that one party government is more likely to stand for the same agenda after an election as that placed before the electorate, a one party majority is more likely to be able to take clear decisions especially in a situation of a national emergency where perhaps the country is under terrorist threat or threat of invasion, also natural occuring threats. In a coalition government when some new issue comes up there is a high chance that this will neccessitate further negociations rather than a leader taking a decision.

[Fred Baker]

"I wholly agree with the Editorial here. I thought the Portilo article wholly plausible and do wonder whether a desperate Brown will offer the Lib Dems PR in return for a little extra time in office sometime in the near future.....Malcolm"

On the Radio 4 Today programme on 20 February 2003, John Humphreys said that Mr Portillo had been regularly briefing the media against Mr Duncan Smith.

"On The Frost Programme on 23 February 2003 John Bercow openly threw his hand in with Mr Portillo - just when everyone else was calming everything down or running for cover."

Duncan Smith was voted in by 155,933 Grass Roots and ousted by just 8 MP's (15 votes).

The fact is Portillo is at it again. Like Heath he stirs the mud. A fustrated leader who screwed up. He is in this for the long sulk and should be ignored.

With friends like Portillo, who needs enemies?

[Fred Baker]

"I wholly agree with the Editorial here. I thought the Portilo article wholly plausible and do wonder whether a desperate Brown will offer the Lib Dems PR in return for a little extra time in office sometime in the near future.....Malcolm"

On the Radio 4 Today programme on 20 February 2003, John Humphreys said that Mr Portillo had been regularly briefing the media against Mr Duncan Smith.

"On The Frost Programme on 23 February 2003 John Bercow openly threw his hand in with Mr Portillo - just when everyone else was calming everything down or running for cover."

Duncan Smith was voted in by 155,933 Grass Roots and ousted by just 8 MP's (15 votes).

The fact is Portillo is at it again. Like Heath he stirs the mud. A frustrated leader who screwed up. He is in this for the long sulk and should be ignored.

[C.McMichael]

You'll have to forgive my remedial understanding of British politics and the political system, but in the above posts I am sensing that some would prefer to surrender or soften their Conservative values for more votes. (ie, pulling the Greens into the mix).

In America, after 30 years of liberal (Democrat) majority our conservatives (Republicans) scored a Major victoy in 1994 under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. For 30 years we attempted to let our core values (smaller government, lower taxes, personal responsibility, encourageent towards business and free-market to grow the economy, etc...) slip in the ruinous policy of "The Big Tent" with the hope that we could let a little bit slide here and there and open the party to more people. The only result was Party dilusion and the appearance that the Conservative movement and its ideas/principles were dying. People left the party.

Mr. Gingrich came in like a fireball; unapologetically stood for his values and ideas and the people rose to support him. He ushered in (under his "Contract with America" - read it) the largest shift in seats of both the House and Senate that America had seen since the 1940's. Not even our recent "democrat election win" that the American media swooned over was as complete as his 1994 accomplishment.

The Republicans lost this most recent election ONLY because they forgot their principles and began to, once again, soften their ideology in an attempt to "bring in the Left voters." It wasn't the War in Iraq that cost them their victory, it was their wastful spending, lack of spirited/strong leadership, and weak stance on illegal immigration.

England's Conservatives seem to need a plain-spoken leader of the People to remind the populace of how GREAT the nation is and how much better it can be when the government steps aside to let the People make decisions for themselves. Mr. Gingrich's Contract with America was a very simple, but effective, list of items that the Government would do. And they followed through on it. Conservatives held both houses for 13 years before they began to forget what they were there for and got a swift kick in the drawers as a reminder.

Don't surrender for votes. Lead and the People will respond to the movement and honesty.

Humble opinion. Thanks. :)

[C.Mcmichael]

Disclaimer: Above I referenced the "Greens" as opposed to Conservative ideals. It is NOT that Conservatives cannot create effective and well thought out policy on the environment; quite the opposite. But that in this nation (the US) Green party's are typically Socialist/Communist in nature and are rabidly against the free-market system and smaller government.

Just wanted to make sure I cleared that up.

[TomTom]

Which of these elections do not produce good government?

Posted by: Rebecca | April 22, 2007 at 20:56

Well the European Elections do NOT produce government. I suggest Rebecca you study the political structures of the EU - the only elections held in the EU are nothing to do with government which is a matter for an UNELECTED Commission and an UNELECTED Council of Ministers

[Honest Tory]

Good advice there from American Conservative C.McMichael. We could do with some sturdy Stateside Consevatism over here.

Unfortunately, through no fault of his, he had not previously realised how far the party here has been flushed down the PC toilet by the appalling Cameron.

Unprincipled opportunists like Cameron are the reason the term 'liberal' has gained bad name in the States.

Fortunately, as he has gathered from posts on this site, there are many genuine Consewrvatives who are prepared to reclaim their party when the time is right.

[HF]

These elections that are coming up should have been about making major gains against Labour and Lib Dems.

Unfortunately the constituencies have been let down by CCHQ that should have installed well before these elections a "fit-for-purpose" voter system.

Meanwhile the Leadership seems to be distracted with Greg Dyke, appeasing the MEPs and issuing vacuous statements rather than improving the organisation.

Having a part time "5 jobs" Francis as Chairman undoubtedly causes the internal mess and the number of cock ups.

[Honest Tory]

Cameron was on TV just now offering the usual windy platitudes. Apparently he expectes us all (presumably not him) to make 'sacrifices' but as usual he was unwilling to be drawn as to what these 'sacrifices' might be.

Good to hear that Sir John Nott has attacked the style-ove-substance, principle-free zone that has been created by the Cameron Mafia.

It's time to reclaim our party.

[Rebecca]

Tom Tom, April 23 @ 6.31 - Most countries do not elect their representatives for the European Parliament using STV. As in this country they use the Party List System - an inferior form of proportional representation.

[malcolm]

Do you think that the government in Ireland is good Rebecca? I assume that it was this system that lumbered the Irish people with Charlie Haughey.
The other examples you have quoted I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with but seriously doubt that they would address the problem of PR that far too much power is ceded to minor parties.
Fred what has the fact that IDS was unseated by the votes of a few MPs got to do with what Portillo wrote?

[ToMTom]

STV is used for elections in the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Tasmania and the Australian Senate. It is used for local council elections, European Parliament elections

Posted by: Rebecca | April 22, 2007 at 20:56

Tom Tom, April 23 @ 6.31 - Most countries do not elect their representatives for the European Parliament using STV. As in this country they use the Party List System - an inferior form of proportional representation.

Posted by: Rebecca | April 23, 2007 at 08:50

Pleased to see you corrected yourself Rebecca

[Rebecca]

Tom Tom, I did not correct myself or need to. In my earlier message I actually said. 'It is used for local council elections, European Parliamentary elections, and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland.'

[Fred Baker]

"Fred what has the fact that IDS was unseated by the votes of a few MPs got to do with what Portillo wrote?"

Portillo undermined IDS (On the Radio 4 Today programme on 20 February 2003, John Humphreys said that Mr Portillo had been regularly briefing the media against Mr Duncan Smith)

It was princibly Portillo and Rupert Murdoch who led the campaign against IDS which led to the fiasco of the last General Election. IDS was actually deselected (when ahead of Labour by the way) with no other obvious contender for leadership available.

On his regular TV appearances Portillo regularly undermines the party. This article “Dyke is a symptom the Tories are desperate for new friends” is typical. He is undermining Cameron and handing out ammunition to the other parties on a grand scale.

As a “might have been” he is jealous and petulance at loosing the 2001 election.

I quote from uk.politics.electoral :-

“I think Portillo would have still been in the top two on the second ballot because there would have been less sign that he was losing momentum. Thus he would have got through. I think it would have been too close to call between Clarke and IDS in this case because it would have been tight. Then on the final ballot I think Portillo would have won because of the only other candidate would not have been acceptable to enough MPs. Clarke would have had a stronger chance against Portillo than if IDS reached the final ballot.”

If we have stuck behind IDS we could now be in power. We have Mr Portillo to thank for not being there.