'Ken Clarke would have been the Tories' McCain'

Last week our sister blog BritainAndAmerica looked at the similarities between John McCain and David Cameron.

Steve Richards of The Independent suggests that Ken Clarke is the figure that would have had an effect on the Conservative Party similar to that which Senator McCain is now having on the Republicans:

"More than Cameron, Clarke is the McCain of the Conservative Party, the veteran with broad appeal who arouses suspicious wariness in Tory activists. The question is more interesting in the light of the Conservatives’ relatively small opinion poll lead and their internal debate, increasingly intense, about the direction of policy.  The election of Clarke would have signalled the Conservatives had changed. Although Cameron spoke a lot about the need for the party to change in many ways he represented continuity in his support for a smaller state, tax cuts and Euro-scepticism.

Clarke spent much of his leadership speech at the Tory conference in 2005 lecturing his audience on the limited scope for tax cuts. Recently in an interview he told me there was no scope at all for cuts in the light of the economic gloom. If he had been elected leader there would have been no flakiness around the issue of tax and spend as there is at the top of the party now. The economic policy would be more rooted and credible. Clarke opposed the war against Iraq and would therefore have more credibility in relation to foreign policy in comparison with the current shadow cabinet, which contains some of the most enthusiastic neo-cons in the land."

Richards' idea is an interesting one but flawed.  Most of the issues that divide McCain and the Republicans are secondary issues.  McCain has something serious to say to all three legs of America's conservative movement.  Ken Clarke is out of sync with Tories on the most fundamental of issues - Europe.  If Ken Clarke had led the Tories from 1997 to 2001 the political risks for Blair of holding a referendum on the euro would have been completely different and he might have gambled.

Clarke and McCain hold completely different views on Iraq of course. Where Clarke and McCain are similar is in manner.  Both are straight-talkers (Clarke was straight-talking yesterday about Rowan Williams).  As Martin Ivens noted in The Sunday Times, Cameron is more like Obama in always appearing reasonable, positive and eager to avoid offence.   If, as appears increasingly likely, it's Obama Vs McCain, Brown is more like McCain in character, Cameron more like Obama.

Comments

[Alex Swanson]

The election of Clarke would have signalled the Conservatives had changed.

A bizarre idea, given that Clarke was one of the leading figures of the Major government, a fact that you can bet that Labour, and the BBC, would have mentioned at every opportunity.

[Serf]

Although Cameron spoke a lot about the need for the party to change in many ways he represented continuity in his support for a smaller state, tax cuts and Euro-scepticism.

Of course what the independent means by change, is "No Longer Conservative".

What the hell is wrong with a smaller state, tax cuts and Euro-scepticism? What Cameron has done is just filled it out a little.

[Politico]

Britain cannot join the euro currently. We are unique amongst Europe that we tend more to buy property rather than rent, in turn - that means a significant amount of the population have a large amount of "debt" - British control over interest rates are therefore essential.

However, once a solution is figured out - it would be in our national interest to join it regardless of whether or not you think Europe is a bad idea. The Euro will be the pre-eminent world currency in time to come, it has already superseded the dollar in terms of circulation. If OPEC changes to the Euro and china/india change their currency reserves - its only going to become strong, and the pound & dollar....weaker.

[David]

Presumably you think we should have adopted the dollar previously then, based on the same criteria of currency pre-eminence?

[HF]

Ken Clarke with an efficient party machine on the ground Yes.

Ken Clarke with a system depending on the sweat of activists, No. They just would not turn out for him.

[michael mcgough]

If Ken Clarke was the answer the question would been about the break up of the party.

[Politico]

Not at all - the British pound has always been strong against the dollar. However, in an age where countries are banding together more and more - where the pound continues to slide in value against the Euro (which continues to get stronger as circumstances fall into place) - we are going to have a pretty useless currency.

Also, if we joined the dollar - America would have been pretty peeved if we set our own interest rates - and considering British control over interest rates is essential at this moment in time, it should remain. However, if the Euro becomes strong - if Europe becomes stronger even if the UK is not part of it, we are going to have difficult choices.

[Sally Roberts]

I too think Obama is similar in style to David Cameron and that is why if I were American I would be a Barack supporter! They are both positive in their approach which I do believe wins hearts and minds. Whilst I agree with a great deal of what McCain stands for, I have to say he comes across as slightly irascible and irritable - whether that is actually true or not and I don't care for that in his personality!

[Politico]

Obama is not as great as people make out. Voting "present" on issues like abortion and refusing to have photo's taken with gays for its political sensitivity in America is hardly the actions of a decent politician.

[Martin Coxall]

The question is whether Clarke really does have the "crossover appeal" of McCain. Fundamentally, his unquestioning Europhilia I would think would be as suspicious to the general electorate as it is to the post-Maastricht conservative party.

Also, Clarke doesn't really have the economic populism of McCain, what with his being an unashamed Bilderberger/Club for Growth type.

Clarke may be 'lovable', but politically he's tainted.

[RobC]

"Clarke is out of sync with Tories on the most fundamental of issues - Europe"

I disagree, I have a 'right of centre' political persuasion, but I am generally pro-European.

The Tories post 1997 have fundementaly been anti-Europe. The Tories before 1997 were a mixed bag - some pro-Europe some anti-Europe. I personally do not see this as a left/right issue. Blair was far more pro-Europe than Brown is/was - but Labour have done much better at managing the issue (ie Brown's five tests - very clever)

Ken Clarke has always been my sort of Tory. I think that had he won in 2001 (instead of IDS - who obvioulsy wasn't many people's kind of Tory) I think that he would have done the Michael Howard role far better and the 2005 GE labour majority would have been a lot less. (Anyway, I rant, that is all history). The main issue I would have seen with Clarke is that Labour would have always labelled him 'old Tory', linked him to the filaings of Thactcher and Major, and the dislike of him when he was Health Secretary.

I was never quite sure what to read into the labour message that 'Ken Clarke was the Leadership Candidate that Labour most feared' True or Bluff?

[John Scott]

Ken would have been a great asset to the Party as leader because he has always retained an important channel to the public consciousness - however unfortunate our poll ratings were over the years. The Party forgot that it is much more important to be liked in opposition than it is in Government, where you are judged on your decisions alone.

It is easy to forget how close the Party came to falling off the edge of the cliff in the 1997-1999 period; Ken would have provided stability. Blair considered a referendum because of our Party's political weakness in 1997 - this was exacerbated, not diminished, by the election of William Hague. Ken would have been a strong political leader for our Party because of his experience. Blair would always have been inexperienced compared to Ken and much easier to trip up in those crucial early years before the myth of Blair took hold.

Above all, Ken would never have allowed the myth to build that Labour managed the economy well over 10 years. He would have pointed out much earlier - and to greater political effect - the damaging consequences of high personal and government debt and below par average GDP growth. He would have held the Government to account on wasteful spending because he is not seen as a Tory committed to cuts. Our greatest strategic error was to hand the issue of the economy on a plate to Labour - Ken would have fought hard to ensure that did not happen. As Chancellor from 1993-1997 he would have been in a strong position to do this.

His tragedy was Europe: the Party was not willing to have as its leader a man who saw Europe as an opportunity rather than a threat. A man continually promoted by Thatcher as ministers in her own image floundered, he was unable to reassure hardcore Tories that he was one of them. This can be the only explanation for the bizarre collective decision to elect IDS as leader in 2001: nothing confirmed in the public mind our lack of appetite for office more than that cruel decision which cost our Party and country dear. And also, to be fair, the reputation of IDS himself who is clearly a good and able man.

[Dave]

The Conservatives have already elected their McCain as leader. His name is David Cameron.

[Martin]

Steve Richards only promotes Clarke because of Clarke's unthinking, anything-is-OK view on the EU. He is trouble making for his Labour masters.

[Moral minority]

Martin Coxhall wrote

"Also, Clarke doesn't really have the economic populism of McCain, what with his being an unashamed Bilderberger/Club for Growth type."

George Osborne is also a Bilderberger and attended its last two annual conferences. Is his attendance recorded declared in the Commons register of interests?

If Cameron models himself on any Republican, it will be on Arnie.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I was a very minor helper in the Clarke leadership bid team in 2005. A mistake I readily admit now but at the time I underestimated the ability of David Cameron to resonate with the public. I actually think Ken Clarke is a very conservative man in many respects and that the organisational changes made to the party would not have happened under Clarke.
I believed in 2005 Clarke would have trimmed his European views, now I'm not so sure, perhaps if we'd elected him the party would have broken up by now.
McCain represents to me the only chance at all that the Republicans have to win the election in hindsight I'm glad that the Conservative Party was not in the same position.

[London Tory]

I am a fervent Eurosceptic, but supported Ken Clarke in the 1997 and 2001 leadership elections. I broadly support Steve Richards analysis. In terms of parliamentary arithmetic, we would be in a far stronger position in 2008 had Ken led us from 1997 to 2003. It took Michael Howard to restore some sanity, and much needed discipline. Hague was too early, and IDS was a disgrace. Ideological purity is fine, but there is something faintly pitiful (if honourable) in seeing the likes of Bill Cash standing up in front of 350 Labour MPs, making the same speeches he was making 15 years ago on the EU. He must feel like General Custer. And all the time, good Conservative politicians waste away their careers in opposition.

Ken has that ideal blend of cheerful unreasonableness, intellectual toughness and popular appeal. He is a skilful and articulate Commons performer, and unlike so many in our Party had his judgement vindicated over Iraq. He consistently gets the most applause from the floating voter on programmes like Question Time. His response on that programme to the Derek Conway affair was brilliant. The audience clapped a Conservative politician over sleaze- 15 years ago they were throwing rotten veg at us.

I so wish, both for Ken and our Party, that he did not have this blind spot over the EU, but he has been a huge figure in politics over the last 25 years, and deserves enormous respect and admiration for his overall contribution to Conservative politics.

I hope David Cameron can find a place for Ken Clarke in his first Government, although knowing Ken he would reject it to stay on the backbenches.

[Cllr Francis Lankester]

As a sign that we had changed in 1997 Hague's fist act should have been to sack discredited politicians like Clarke whose ERM policy caused mass unemplyment, repossessions and immense suffering-and our election defeat. As a teacher in an innner city comp. I saw at first hand the terrible damage that arrogant man did. Why is he still in politics at all?

[Northernhousewife]

I wonder whether he should be Shadow Chancellor and George Osborne, Party Chair.

Business would like him and feel they could trust us. The general public would like him, as they always have.
The one thing all Tories can say is he was a good Chancellor.
Labour would fear him and throw old mud, but he has an air that can shrug off the ridiculous for what it is. Who better to set the record straight?
It would add age and gravitas and [+likability] to our front bench - who already look better than Labour's.

It could be seen as undoing the decontamiation strategy, but Clarke was never caught up in sleaze or suspenders.

[Martin Coxall]

@Moral minority:

I didn't realise that Osborne was a Bilderberger, but he certainly hasn't been acting like one. He's been an unashamed economic populist the last year or so, and the public clearly love it. All this talk of "general wellbeing" clearly resonates.

@London Tory:

I agree. Clarke is clearly a man of great talents, but given his Europhilic bent, maybe some prestigious but powerless EU tenure is in order.

If I were Gordon Brown and feeling a bit mischievous, I'd make Kenneth Clarke my nominee for the first post-treaty of Lisbon President of the European Council.

[Tony Makara]

On the question of Britain joining the Euro, there are good arguments for and against. Nontheless I believe the world needs to look beyond the idea of national currencies and look towards eventually adopting a world currency unit, which initially would have all currencies pegged, and would over a given time become the recognized currency of the globe. Such a world currency unit would bring economic discipline and would nullify the influence of George Soros types who milk and subvert national economies through arbitrage. The anarchic system of floating currencies has done great damage since the end of Bretton Woods. A world currency unit, to be used alongside existing currencies, would be of great advantage to the world. Of course setting up such a system would inevitably require a degree of co-operation from the nations of the world, but the long-term benefits would be to the advantage of every nation.

[London Tory]

@Cllr Francis Lankester

Ridiculous comment. Have you forgotten that Hague was a member of the same Cabinet, and voted in support of Maastrict ? Should he have sacked himself too in that case ?

Ideological purity is fine, but endless years in Oppostion is pointless.

[Northernhousewife]

Cllr Lankester.

Can I remind you that the man sitting in No.10 supported the action that was taken re ERM. How much as the Shadow Chancellor do you lay at his door? I assume you are saying HE shouldn't be in politics, let alone the Chancellor for the past 11 years, let alone PM?

My recollection of history is that Ken Clarke WAS NOT the Chancellor at the time [Norman Lamont was].
So on your theory, that is Brown out and Ken in.

[Sally Roberts]

"Also, Clarke doesn't really have the economic populism of McCain, what with his being an unashamed Bilderberger/Club for Growth type."

I really do not understand this problem people have with the Bilderberg group! Does no one here belong to a club which has an exclusivity to it and things which only its members know? There are very few (if any!) groups or societies which are so open that anyone can join them and everyone knows everything there is to know about them!!

[Martin Coxall]

Kenneth Clarke became Chancellor /after/ the ERM fiasco. Norman Lamont and John Major were the primary architects of Britain's having entered at an unsupportable level.

[Sean Fear]

Tony, on the contrary, the real economic damage that was done to this country was done by those who insisted that sterling must be a "strong" currency, pegged to the Gold Standard in the Twenties, pegged to a value of 5 dollars up to 1949, and pegged to a value of 2.8 dollars up to 1967. Allowing currency values to fluctuate is by far the most sensible thing to do.

[Martin Coxall]

@Sally Roberts:

It's not that the Bilderberg group is private and secretive that bothers. It's specifically the kind of pro-huge business and corporate welfare stance of many Bilderbergers that disturbs.

We would find it hard be the defender of small business and individual enterprise if our candidate for Chancellor appears to be firmly lodged in the pocket of the whiners of corporate welfare republic like Brown or a Blair.

Fortunately, Osborne's words and actions recently demonstrate that he's not that easily corruptible or enamored with big money.

[Martin Coxall]

@Sean Fear:

How about we allow the market to decide? We are Tories after all.

We let the The Bank of England keep its fiat Sterling back by magic and the love of Mervyn, and also authorise the Treasury to distribute its own sterling notes, backed by actual assets of its choosing: metals, oil, The Queen's eggs, whichever.

Then we'll see which one people prefer. The market whether fiat or real currency is the winner.

Surely you'd be in favor of letting the market decide?

[Yet Another Anon]

The man who said 40% of GDP was about the right level for public spending generally, who didn't read the Maastricht Treaty before commenting on it, who said on national radio that Consett had an excellent steelworks although it had closed, the one the Liberal Democrats see as being almost one of them.

Also the man well known for his links to the tobacco industry, noted for his laidback attitude and looking more and more by the day like a heart attack candidate. Someone fervently pro the UK's membership of the EU.

[Yet Another Anon]

My recollection of history is that Ken Clarke WAS NOT the Chancellor at the time [Norman Lamont was].
Kenneth Clarke was one of those most guilty in pressuring Margaret Thatcher to agree to the UK joining the ERM - him, John Major and Douglas Hurd.

[Sally Roberts]

"It's not that the Bilderberg group is private and secretive that bothers. It's specifically the kind of pro-huge business and corporate welfare stance of many Bilderbergers that disturbs."

But I think it tends to "disturb" those who see themselves as powerless and this is the sort of attitude that fuels conspiracy theories of all kinds! If you feel yourself to have any influence over your world - however small - you tend not to worry about such things - you just get on with living your life and doing the best you can!

[Sally Roberts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

Truth is, most of us here would give our right arms to be invited to these meetings and to be in positions of influence - not being so is what irks most of those who cry "conspiracy"!

[Tony Makara]

Sean Fear, surely you must agree that floating currencies invite speculation and lead to the exploitation of differentials, this makes pricing volatile and makes setting macroeconomic policy a game of catch-up. The UKs economy has been in relative decline since the pound was floated. Of course that hasn't been the prime mover in Britain's decline, but is one among many factors. The very fact that a currency is floated serves to prostitute its value and invites speculation.

[Martin Coxall]

@Sally Roberts:

I stress I'm not saying that the Bilderberg group /per se/ is some evil conspiracy, just that I take exception to the corporate-welfare stance of many, many Bilderbergers. My point is that although Osborne may be one of them, he's not *one of them*, if you catch my drift.

Just FYI, if anyone does want to invite me to be a member of some shadowy conspiracy - Illiuminati, Freemasons, Templars, Elders of Zion - whichever I'll send you my CV. Sounds like fun.

[John Wilkin]

Clarke's admirers often describe him as a 'big beast' while his opponents call him a dinosaur. It always strikes me that these analogies aren't mutually exclusive.

The party has rejected Clarke as its leader three times now and it was right to do so on each occasion. I'm sure we can all remember him sharing a platform with Blair supporting the Euro, without Conservative opposition the single currency would almost certainly have been imposed on us without a referendum.

I voted for IDS in 2001 and I will never apoligise for that. It was not the decision of the membership to elect IDS leader that demonstrated our lack of appetite for office so much as the subsequent refusal by large sections of the Party hierarchy to accept that decision. Some set out to undermine his position from the day he was elected

[John Scott]

John Wilkin - I think you should reflect very hard on your decision to back IDS as leader over Kenneth Clarke because therein lies the fundamental reason why we have been rejected by the electorate three times in a row.

[London Tory]

@ John Wilkin

Maybe you should apologise for supporting IDS in 2001, because by doing so you and your peers guaranteed at least another 5 years of Labour Govt. Iain is a decent and honourable man, but as the late Hugo Young said at the time of his election, he totally lacks the horsepower to lead a political party. If I live to be 100, I hope never to re- visit our dark days under IDS from 2001-03, when morale was rock bottom, we won nothing, and our public face was Oliver Letwin, Theresa May and IDS "The Quiet Man", croaking his way to oblivion.

Ken Clarke was in a different league. And still is.

[Dale]

"John Wilkin - I think you should reflect very hard on your decision to back IDS as leader over Kenneth Clarke because therein lies the fundamental reason why we have been rejected by the electorate three times in a row."

How dare you suggest such a thing without provideing the slightest bit of evidence supporting your theory. As someone who was a vehement supporter of kenneth clarke's 2005 leadership bid I can quite honestly say that if ken clarke had been elected in 1997 or 2001 it would have been the end of the conservative party. Whether you like it or not, the conservative party is very eurocsceptic, a europhile would have disenfranchised the grassroots and led to massive defections.

Don't blame IDS for those who sought to undermine him, lest we forget he was ahead in the polls when he was ousted.

[Dale]

"Maybe you should apologise for supporting IDS in 2001, because by doing so you and your peers guaranteed at least another 5 years of Labour Govt."

Only a few months ago david cameron was seen to be vacuous and was trailing in the polls, If it were not for a strong conference speech, unity of the grassroots and most importantly of all, Gordon Brown's dithering, we would be on our way to yet another election defeat. If these things had not happened, would you expect me to apologise for voting for david cameron?

[Martin Coxall]

@Dale:

Maybe you should apologise for all of the things you'll ever do in the future, right now. Then you could just link to your post in the future and save yourself lots of time. :)

[John Scott]

Dale - in every public opinion poll Ken was ahead of IDS. Labour was thrilled to bits when IDS won the leadership. If you want to replay this period in full, the PMQs for the period are on the No 10 archive.

I do not believe the Party would have split under Ken Clarke and there is no evidence to support it - although various people have suggested it so it is oft-repeated. A few loony tunes who left anyway to campaign for Robert Kilroy-Silk may have gone, but we would have won far more support from new voters. Most opinion polls from the period show this to be the case.

It is also obvious that if you want to win an election you choose the most popular person to do so. An intimate knowledge of the Maastricht Treaty is sadly not enough.

[C List and Proud]

ID-S set about decontaminating the Conservative brand with his approach to social policy, visits toi Easterhouse etc. Ideas which Howard ditched, but which Cameron, Gove and others are picking up again.

He was no leader, but his analysis of the route back to power was correct and is now being followed with some success.

Those who sought his removal were statist tories in the Clarke mode who went on to fight a core vote election two years later, with limited success.

[John Scott]

C List - for the record, Ken was tackling issues such as social housing in the 1980s as inner cities minister and was a reformer at both health and education under Mrs Thatcher.

There is no way Ken would have fought the Howard election in that way with its focus on gypsies and immigration.

[Martin Coxall]

@C.L.A.P.

You're right about IDS. He is, and always was, brilliant 'advisor' material. His social policy commission is some of the best work he has done.

But he is not, and never was, inspiring leadership material. Too many in this party let their visceral mistrust of Clarke's Europhilia blind them to this simple truth.

[Sean Fear]

"The UKs economy has been in relative decline since the pound was floated."

Not at all. Since pulling out of the ERM in 1992, our economy has grown faster than the OECD average.

John Scott, how do you think Kenneth Clarke would have surived as leader had he been campaigning against his party on Euro membership, and European political integration?

For the record, polls in 2001 showed very little difference in the Conservative rating under any of IDS, Portillo, or Clarke.

[Dale]

"There is no way Ken would have fought the Howard election in that way with its focus on gypsies and immigration."

Oh please, policies cannot be soley arranged by party. Plenty of people agree with individual policies but not manifestos. So either it was a few things that lost the conservative party the election, in which case we should change those things, or it was everything, in which case we should all run off and join the labour party.

Tories 33% Labour 36%
Tories ahead on Immigration!
Tories ahead on tax!
Tories behind on public services
Tories behind on Health
Tories behind on education
Tories ahead on Defence
Tories ahead on foreign affairs
Tories Ahead on Europe
Tories behing on welfare

We lost the election beacsue wew were not media savvy enough and becasue we had policies that people disagreed with. So now that we are more media savvy, lets get rid of the policies people didn't like and keep the policies that people did.

"I do not believe the Party would have split under Ken Clarke and there is no evidence to support it - although various people have suggested it so it is oft-repeated."

The proof is that he was NOT elected! Which proves that we did NOT want him. Why can't you understand that?

Once again i speak as someone that supporterd clrake.

[John Scott]

Sean Fear - first, in relation to the economy, the relevant measure is the Eurozone and our economy has been weaker for much of the last ten years. We are also saddled with a greater debt level - both personal and state. It is to our shame that we have colluded with Labour on the economy to give them a 10-year free ride because we wanted to prove a point on the ERM.

Regarding Europe, Ken would not have been campaigning against his Party because there would not have been a referendum. Blair only considered a referendum because we were on our knees politically.

We would not have been in that position under Ken Clarke because we would have chosen a popular leader and we would have been making the running on the economy, health and education.

[The Huntsman]

'I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe.'
Kenneth Clarke, Conservative Chancellor

The Eurosceptic website 'Speakout' carries this quote on its 'about' page and since Clarke has not sued them, it may be inferred that he does not deny saying it or believing it nor does he try to use the currently fashionable weasel-excuse that it 'was taken out of context'.

That being so how could one ever begin to contemplate having him as a prospective PM?

Churchill once said: 'I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire'.

Clarke, on the other hand, would say: 'I have become the Queen's First Minister in order to preside over the dissolution of the United Kingdom.'

That ought to be enough to debar him from the leadership of a party which ostensibly pretends to a policy of preserving the United Kingdom before one begins looking at other aspects of his policies, character & antecedents.

His whole demeanour and attitude is redolent of the worst days of the Major years and is thus tainted with the noxiousness of that best-forgotten era. His last run over the jumps for the leadership was notable for his cynical attempt to persuade us that he had somehow become more Eurosceptic with his assertion that the Euro had been a failure thus far. This reminded some of communists explaining away the demise of communism by saying that its practitioners had not been anywhere near socialist enough though he has since more than reverted to type with his constant undermining of his leader’s policy on a referendum (enabling the BBC to wave his views at every turn under the noses of party spokesmen).

He was ‘Yesterday’s Man’ by 1997. Today he has become a bed-blocker whose seat might more usefully be occupied, with the consent of its voters, by someone more attune to the spirit of the Conservative Party of 2008 rather than with the 1950s socialist behemoth that is the EU.

[John Scott]

"The proof is that he was NOT elected! Which proves that we did NOT want him.

"Once again i speak as someone that supporterd Clarke."

Dale - this doesn't make any sense. How can you not want him and support him at the same time?!

[London Tory]

I am sorry, but is anyone seriously suggesting that we would be sitting here today, 10 years into a failing Labour Government, with only 198 seats, and a 5 point opinion poll lead, had Ken led the Party from 1997-2003 ? Because if you are, you are either a UKIP troll or a fully paid up member of the Ostrich Tendency. A very sad memory for me in Autumn 2001 was seeing IDS in a marquee addressing members during his leadership campaign. Blair was in No.10 at the time don't forget. Iain was wearing a navy blazer and a pair of grey slacks. The average age of the membership in that tent was at least 70. Iain talked mainly about Europe, and was well received. It was a scene totally divorced from the reality of 21st century Britain I'm afraid. Part of the reason we revived in 2003 was the Michael H was so much better in the Commons than IDS, and used his intellect against Blair. This in turn revived our moribund and idle Parliamentary Party. As for this myth about reviving under IDS, both of his Party Conferences as leader became shoring up exercises to protect his leadership. My buttocks still clench every time I hear Theresa May's "some people see us as the Nasty Party" speech, followed by IDS himself and his risible "never underestimate the Quiet Man" performance. We were flatlining, not only in the polls but also as a credible political party.

And finally, will IDS supporters please STOP using the disloyalty card against those of us- the vast majority- who wanted him out. Have you actually seen IDS' voting record against the Conservative Govt from 1992-1997? The reason he got no loyalty from the Party was because he gave none himself.

[Dale]

"Dale - this doesn't make any sense. How can you not want him and support him at the same time?!"

When did I say that I did not want him I said WE did not want him, WE being the collective term reffering to the conservative party. But you already knew that.

[Yet Another Anon]

I think you should reflect very hard on your decision to back IDS as leader over Kenneth Clarke because therein lies the fundamental reason why we have been rejected by the electorate three times in a row.
This is definitely scapegoating, IDS was leader for only 2 years and a combination of those determined that Michael Portillo or Ken Clarke should have been leader ganged up to remove him, he was never given the opportunity to lead the party into a General Election - he developed policies based on sound principle rather than the rather jingoistic tabloid slogans that William Hague and especially Michael Howard went for, developing a strong policy framework may not yield immediate stunning results, but in the longer term it is the foundation of strong broad support rather than a rather shallow fickle support that slogans tend to bring, I think that if he had not been removed that the Conservative Party would have had much closer to Labour's vote and the majority would have been lower, he probably would still be leader now.

[Martin Coxall]

Can we please stop using this "bed blocker" phrase? It's sneering and glib, and both unfair and quite unbecoming when applied to somebody like Kenneth Clarke, a man who has given a significant proportion of his life to this party.

So he's more enthusiastic than much of the party about the EU? So what? That's no reason for that sort of contempt.

[Yet Another Anon]

We were flatlining, not only in the polls but also as a credible political party.
The Conservative vote in 2005 edged up, in absolute terms it was still lower than that of 1997 - most of the Conservative gains were due to the Liberal Democrats taking votes off Labour and a rather greater focusing of votes for the Conservative Party in the South of England. If Labour's vote had held at 2001 levels there would hardly have been any change in seats at all!

[Dale]

"And finally, will IDS supporters please STOP using the disloyalty card against those of us- the vast majority- who wanted him out. Have you actually seen IDS' voting record against the Conservative Govt from 1992-1997? The reason he got no loyalty from the Party was because he gave none himself."

Wasn't that the term that kept us out of office for over a decade?

"We were flatlining, not only in the polls"

WRONG!

I was not a supporter of IDS, but IDS was AHEAD in the polls, you cannot deny this. I am not for one minute suggesting that IDS would have brought the conservatives anything other than a landslide defeat, but to suggest that the conservative party grassroots and the public wanted rid of him is absurd.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Not sure why everone is getting heated debating something that is never going to happen. Clarke will never lead the party and I expect will never hold a senior position within the party again.In many ways that is a shame but his Europhilia did for him and makes it difficult for Cameron to use his undoubted talents. I hope he still has a positive role to play and does not allow himself to be just wheeled out whenever the BBC want a 'Tory split'on Europe story.
I'm sure IDS still does have a part to play in our party. Personally, I believe it's doing what he does at the moment with the CSJ and acting as a kind of social conscience to the party which he does with passion and skill.
Endless debates about the mistakes that were made in the past don't really benefit anyone.

[John Wilkin]

London Tory please STOP using the disloyalty card against the Maastricht rebels - the leadership of the Party was disloyal to its own grass roots.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I'm a little lost, Ed, on why you want to get us started on yesterday's battles. Comparisons are odious!

I supported and helped Ken Clarke over David Cameron in 2005. It wasn't until Ken was eliminated that I transferred my support over to David. Almost three years on, I am hugely impressed with the new direction in which David is taking us. Ken is still a 'big beast' in the Conservative Party and it's a shame that he's not in the shadow cabinet (although I understand that it was his decision to stay on the back benches).

My opposition to our withdrawal from the EPP is well known. Now is not the time or the place to recycle the arguments for and against membership of it.

My only advice to DC is not to change track - however tempting. He must be under enormous pressure from certain people in the party to revert back to the issues that concern our core voters. Don't do it. Remember, we need to change to win in order to win for Britain!

[London Tory]

Just remembered another gem from that era; "the Quiet Man is back, and he's turning up the volume".

I remember Mrs Thatcher- no instinctive fan- making Ken the Minister for the Inner Cities in the 80s "because he looks like he lives in one".

[Martin Coxall]

I'm opposed to our EPP withdrawal as well, since it will limit our MEPs ability to land committee roles within the European Parliament.

Although, since our MEPs seem currently out-of-step with the mainstream of our party, it's not a bad thing.

As somebody who'd like to be a Tory MEP someday, it seems counterproductive to me to be intentionally weakening our party's position.

But, who knows. Maybe we'll make a good go of the new arrangement and form a more explicitly subsidiarist group and lure some like-minded parties from the EPP? Though I suspect we need more susbsidiarist MEPs first.

[John Scott]

It is so reassuring that, as we move towards winning again, realism and pragmatism are being injected into the European debate. Of course, it would be madness to withdraw from the EPP group, which gives us real influence on policy.

[Martin Coxall]

@John Scott:

You know what? I'm a Tory, and yet am prepared to make all manner of shocking and terrible statements about the EU:

The ideals behind the EU are laudable, and whilst it falls short in implementing them, it's still moving in the right direction. The EU is not Socialist. It is not EVIL. It is not perfect. For all its flaws, the EU is both pragmatic and democratic enough that the EU is reformable.

The danger with people like Ken Clarke is that he thinks that the EU is perfect "as is" and would therefore be useless to spearhead EU reform. The danger with the frothing Europhobic wing is that they don't want reform either, they just want out.

We must be pragmatic; We should do our level best to ensure that we are at the forefront of efforts to reform the EU as we are at the forefront of efforts to reform this country.

[Sean Fear]

"Sean Fear - first, in relation to the economy, the relevant measure is the Eurozone and our economy has been weaker for much of the last ten years. "

Very well then, economic growth in this country has outpaced the eurozone since 1992.

[Sean Fear]

"I am sorry, but is anyone seriously suggesting that we would be sitting here today, 10 years into a failing Labour Government, with only 198 seats, and a 5 point opinion poll lead, had Ken led the Party from 1997-2003 "

One can never be sure about counterfactuals, but I think that that is perfectly plausible.

The defeat we suffered in 1997 was certain to keep us out of office for two terms, at the minium.

WRT opinion polls, our suuport did gradually edge up over the 1997-2005 period, although painfully slowly.

[Dale]

"It is so reassuring that, as we move towards winning again, realism and pragmatism are being injected into the European debate. Of course, it would be madness to withdraw from the EPP group, which gives us real influence on policy."

HAHAHAHAHAHA

So now its europe that has kept us from winning. It was focusing on immigration a few hours ago and public services before that.

Give me one exapmle of the conservative parties influence on epp policy!

Why can't you accept that you are not only out of touch with our party, you are out of touch with the country aswell?

Read some opinion polls, talk to some people on the street, then maybe you will realise just how out of touch you are mr scott.

[John Wilkin]

Let's not forget that Ken Clarke was a very senior member of the government which was defeated in '97

[Martin Coxall]

I imagine, that like the Eurozone, growth rates are enormously varied across the UK. I'd like to see a regional breakdown of UK and Eurozone growth hotspots.

I would point out, though, that GDP growth has been excellent across the Eurozone when many Eurotrogs were unwisely willing it to crash and burn, which is important.

Also, GDP growth is but one measure of Economic success. The Eurozone has outperformed the UK on some key indicators, underperformed on others.

The *real* test, of course, of the ECB's economic competence is how well the Eurozone weathers the coming storm. I suspect that it will recover more quickly than the UK.

Paradoxically, the ECB's inability to use monetary policy to deal with asymmetric shocks has required Euroland states to avoid saddling their citizens with the vast levels of personal debt in the way the Clucking Fist has encouraged in the UK.

When the debtpocalypse bites, British people will start looking at the Eurozone with envious eyes.

[Martin Coxall]

@Dale:

There's no need to be rude. He wasn't rude to you. I can't speak for Mr Scott, but I can say that I agree with him.

The point about leaving the EPP is that it would make it rather more difficult for Tory MEPs to land committee posts.

And like with Westminster, much of the thorny business of legislating is done in committees. Lose the committee seats, lose influence on the legislative process.

I find it hard to imagine a party voluntarily surrendering influence because other people don't like you very much. It seems... weak.

[Sean Fear]

" I would point out, though, that GDP growth has been excellent across the Eurozone when many Eurotrogs were unwisely willing it to crash and burn, which is important."

Not over the past 15 years, it hasn't. There are individual countries that have performed well, but the overall figure is pretty mediocre. Since 1992, UK growth has comfortably exceeded that for the eurozone as a whole.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Interested to know if you can think of a single example Martin of where Conservative party membership of the EPP has been decisive in securing legislation of advantage to Britain.
We will leave the EPP because David Cameron promised we would and it is on that basis he won the leadership election.
No idea why we are discussing this (again) it's all settled and apart from being a matter of honour and trust is hardly of earth shattering importance.

[Martin Coxall]

The notion that the UK has done better doesn't imply that the Eurozone's performance has been bad.

Far from it, I think. Especially when you consider that the Eurozone has taken in its stride the admission of a Germany that spent much of the nineties reeling from reconstruction, the ERM crisis, the big-bang creation of a brand new currency, and the subsequent admission of several of Europe's poorest countries without having a significant impact on its overall economic performance.

Viewed in that light, the Eurozone has probably performed far better than its creators probably had any right to expect. And it is to the ECB's credit.

[Dale]

When random people start random acusations of 'rudeness' they have lost the argument.

I ask once again for an example of tory influence on epp policy?

[Martin Coxall]

@Malcolm Dunn:

Oh, I accept it's a done deal. I have no especial attachment to the EPP on any level. It doesn't represent this party's general approach to EU thinking. My only concern was for our MEPs losing their committee seats.

Hague is a smart guy. I trust that he has done the electoral calculus to assure that Tory MEPs will still have a significant share of committee seats post-2009. I just hope it's worth the risk.

With UKIP being in embarassing disarray, I assume we can expect to win BIG in the 2009 Europarl elections? It would be nice to be able to capitalize on that, especially as the Treaty of Lisbon will almost certainly have been ratified by then.

But you're right. We've been over this a squillion times. It's pointless to have this discussion again, when the matter is settled.

[Martin Coxall]

@Dale:

I accept that we probably have little influence on EPP policy, and I repeat that my concern was for Tory committee seats. I'd be interested to know if anyone knows for certain how many committee seats we stand to gain/lose from the change of grouping.

And, no. Pointing out when somebody's being rude doesn't imply I have 'lost an argument'. I wasn't, in fact, arguing with you because we're both on the same side. We all want what's best for our MEPs and our party.

I did think that you were being unnecessarily rude to Mr Scott for no good reason though. Disagreement is not an excuse for bad manners.

[The Antelope's Top Hat]

I do believe that if Ken Clarke had won in 2001, the Tories would be in, at the very least, a minority government now. We now know Blair flirted with resigning in 2004 but ultimately IDS, Howard and Kennedy were never going to make anything land. But a popular, competent anti-war leader of the opposition probably could have.

But Cameron was elected against the backdrop of 8 years of Blair, and the next US president will be chosen against the backdrop of 8 years of Bush. The rules are different. "Time for a change" is a powerful political slogan but it's the rare politician who has the charisma and political instinct and determination to rise to embody that change. Blair had that, Reagan had that, Cameron seems to have it, Obama seems to have it. It strikes me that the only reason the Republicans are supporting a "Clarke" is that they couldn't find a "Cameron".

[Sean Fear]

Martin Coxally, as against that, the one-size-fits-all policy has been awful for countries like Italy and Portugal, who find themselves tied into a currency whose value is far too high for their weak economies.

[Martin Coxall]

You mean, we have a choice of being lead by "Our McCain" or "Our Obama"? Goodness me, we were spoiled at the last leadership election, weren't we?

Although, we don't have anybody who gets the charisma thing down quite like Obama does. Dave is immensely likable and that has got him a long way, but he's not got that pant-wettingly good oratory we're seeing from the junior senator from Illinois.

Speaking of which:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Yes_we_can_McCain_edition.html

"Yes We Can", McCain style. Chortle.

[Martin Coxall]

@Sean Fear:

There was an argument that the 'small countries' will find that their economies will eventually find a natural level within the Eurozone. I never particularly bought that argument.

Although, if Italy bothered to pay any attention to the growth and stability pact, it might have found the ability to withstand asymmetric shocks a little easier.

In any case, it's not an argument that applies to Britain, because we're not a small country, and wouldn't have to deal with asymmetric shocks, we'd be the ones dealing them out because we're so out of sync with the Eurozone.

In summary, I think they're better off without us, rather than vice versa. :)

On the downside, being out of the Eurozone means that we have spent a decade at the tender mercies of an altogether more malicious economic force, THE BROON.

[John Scott]

Dale - In terms EPP influence, the most obvious recent example is the Services Directive where a British Conservative MEP negotiated it through the Parliament. For those who want a blow by blow account please see Mark Mardell's excellent commentary: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4710578.stm

Mark Harbour is the EPP's spokesman on internal market issues and almost single handedly steered the Directive through.

Caroline Jackson has played an equally influential role on environmental policy over recent years, injecting UK pragmatism into the policy process.

There is one way of ensuring we have no influence over the EPP at all - and that is by exiting from it.

[John Scott]

I of course meant Malcolm Harbour rather than Mark Harbour in the above post.

[Tony Makara]

Martin Coxall, the intellectual standard of candidates around the world has fallen compared with a generation ago. Just look at some of the nonentities in parliament. We are going through an era when it doesn't take much to shine. The thing I most notice about politicians today is their inability to come up with big society-changing ideas. Everything seems geared towards maintaining the status quo, managing the here and now. There is no big-bang, nothing to believe in anymore, it is the politics of still water, placid and pointless.

[Martin Coxall]

@John:

Is the Services Directive one of the tripartite acts along with Mifid and the other one?

I know that round these parts (I work in an investment bank), MIFID is widely considered one of the most thoughtful and well-constructed bits of market-oriented legislation we've seen. I also understand that Tory MEPs were instrumental in the basic design and structure of MIFID.

It would be a shame to lose that kind of good work. I trust Hague enough to ensure this doesn't happen.

[Martin Coxall]

@Tony Makara:

It's a common refrain, but I wonder whether it's actually true. I mean, how often does a Winston Churchill *truly* come along?

The thing is, we are a country with a large middle class, whose existence by global standards is really rather pleasant, thanks very much. And they'd really rather we didn't change too much in case we break it.

That's the reason why politics has entered some kind of Stasis in Britain.

However, there are signs that the neoliberal consensus that started with Thatcher is seriously approaching the end of its shelf life in terms of its ability to motivate the electorate.

Brown clings to the dregs of the New Labour project, hoping not to get washed out with them, mumbling about PFI and targets, but there's nothing left. Blair took what ideas he could pinch from Thatcher, as long as they were popular, Brown corrupted them with his client-statism, lack of business acumen and obsession with big money.

Now the gross daemoniac lump that is the mutant chimera of Thatcherite ideals viewed through an unprincipled Labour prism lies wretched and dying before us, imploring Dave through its hideous swollen eyes to kick it in the head and put it out of its misery.

But if we do that, we need something new. And do we actually have it? And is it inspiring enough for people to vote for us? The polls seem to suggest that the answer to that is a resounding 'maybe'.

[Dale]

"Dale - In terms EPP influence, the most obvious recent example is the Services Directive where a British Conservative MEP negotiated it through the Parliament. For those who want a blow by blow account please see Mark Mardell's excellent commentary: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4710578.stm

Mark Harbour is the EPP's spokesman on internal market issues and almost single handedly steered the Directive through.

Caroline Jackson has played an equally influential role on environmental policy over recent years, injecting UK pragmatism into the policy process.

There is one way of ensuring we have no influence over the EPP at all - and that is by exiting from it."

I asked you to give an exmple of the conservative party's influence on the EPP, not for you to give an example of 2 conservative meps that are wildly out of touch with our party aiding the epp ram something throught the european parliament.

Why are you still fighting what is pretty much the consensus?

[John Scott]

Martin - yes, you are absolutely right about MiFID. I also work in the City and we need, as a country (never mind as a Party), to ensure that our MEPs are fully briefed and properly represented at the highest levels to ensure the City of London's influence, reach and success are advanced, and not undermined, by EU regulation.

I find the debate in the Tory Party to be really parochial at times, when there is so much at stake for our economy.

Being a member of the EPP-ED will never be easy because we have to work with colleagues across the EU to fight for the best result possible - sometimes this means a compromise.

Malcolm Harbour, through the Services Directive, and Caroline Jackson on environmental regulations, has shown you can stand up for Britain and be an influential player in the EU at the same time.

I do not believe joining up with the Bulgarians would offer us the same opportunities to stand up for Britain.

[Martin Coxall]

@Dale:

Um, I think the Conservative Party is very much in favour of liberalisation of service provision across the EU.

Our MEPs managed to have a notable impact in shepherding how the legislation enabling that turned out.

That is significant, is it not?

In the event that we do withdraw, which is not -- however you frame it -- a foregone conclusion, I just hope that our new grouping can successfully draw enough members to keep Tory MEPs on committee benches, as I'm sure do you.

I trust William Hague to do the right thing.

[John Scott]

Dale - do you know anything about the Services Directive and how much Harbour had to fight for a liberal economic viewpoint to prevail? He could only do that, and succeed, by virtue of his position in the EPP/ED.

I really do suggest you get to grips with the issues here before commenting further. There are jobs and UK competitiveness at stake at a time when the economy is under real pressure.

[Steve George]

I'm afraid Ken only ever puts me to sleep with his waffle at stuffy fringe meetings.

[Margaret on the Guillotine]

Oh dear, Editor, what have you unleashed?

Getting back to your original post (it was about McCain, remember?), I think it's the other way around. McCain is the GOP's Clarke: the best man for the job, moderate, liked by the people, best electoral prospect - but hated by the embittered, introverted, party membership, who are prepared to sacrifice the chance, even the hope, of government for ideological purity. I mean, they even booed him at CPAC despite the fact he is sure to win the race.

More pertinently, as the GOP is likely to fall post-November, like the Tories post-1997, further into right-wing certainty and self-righteousness, one thing is for sure - their 2012 candidate will be their IDS, or their George McGovern, or their Barry Goldwater.

And judging from some of the commenters on here, there are many within the Tory party who'd like to be in 30% poll-rating permanent opposition under a McGovern or a Goldwater and still don't realise the foolishness of it.

[Martin Coxall]

@Margaret:

I think you're absolutely right. I also sense your implict assumption that November is a foregone conclusion: a Dem victory?

McCain may have certain broad-based appeal, but you only have to look at the respective turnouts of the GOP and the Dem primaries to see that McCain has an uphill struggle. Add to the fact that the man is hopelessly tainted by the Iraq fiasco, and his chances of beating Hillary, let alone a formidable opponent like Obama seem slim.

Still, I think the GOP need and deserve a period in the political wilderness. They have made a Devil's pact with far-right evangelical Christianist fundamentalism, and I want them to learn the true cost of such a pact.

[Tony Makara]

Margaret on the Guillotine, there is a school of thought that believes a Conservative defeat in the next election would not be a complete disaster because it would allow for a much more radical programme and a much longer period in office. There is no way that Labour could win a fifth term, people would be hungry, in fact starving for a change of government, so it would be an opportunity to get into power with a truly dynamic programme, and with a majority large enough to see that programme carried forward over a generation. So even if the party were to face defeat at the next election it would be even worse for Labour in the long run.

[Margaret on the Guillotine]

Tony Makara - very interesting theory but I'd like to know what makes up the "radicalism" that will apparently sweep so easily to power in the 2015 election, and, if Cameron is made to fall on his sword after a 2010 defeat, who is the successor?

I suspect the answer offered by the Conservative Home tendency is the Tory Party becoming an explicitly Evangelical party, maybe a Liam Fox in charge, the David Burroweses, the Andrew Rosindells and the Nadine Dorries on the front bench. A policy of demonising the "undeserving poor", slashing benefits while not restoring the job base to reduce unemployment, and stigmatising minorities.

You may be right that people will by then be itching for a change in government (but do you really want seven more years out of power?), but I would not be surprised if the people of Britain decided that it's the Liberal Democrats that provides the change.

[Martin Coxall]

@Margaret:

Surely not? This party doesn't have the rich vein of puritanism running through it that would allow a US-style evangelical hijacking.

At the very worst, the party might veer off into some Daily Mail-bothering libertarian corner of sensible but politically unsaleable ideas. I'd be happy there, but I don't doubt that we'd not be electable.

[Tony Makara]

Margaret on the Guillotine, the radicalism would most likely be build around a greater level of economic self-sufficiency and restoring the job base through manufacturing. The very things that are currently lacking in the policies of both main parties. Most of my relatives are Labour supporters and among them there is great anguish that Labour has wasted a decade in power and is now about to lose that power. I remember their optimism in the years of Labour opposition and how that contrasts with their sense of feeling cheated today. As a relative said to me over the weekend "Now they want to kick the unemployed out of council homes, what the hell has happened to the Labour party?" The fact is Labour supporters are confused by a government that wallows in its own ego and has forgotten that it exists to represent and care for the common man.

[Dale]

"Dale - do you know anything about the Services Directive and how much Harbour had to fight for a liberal economic viewpoint to prevail? He could only do that, and succeed, by virtue of his position in the EPP/ED."

Still waiting for an example of the conservatice party's influence, not individual meps helping the epp.

[Mike A]

"Margaret on the Guillotine, the radicalism would most likely be build around a greater level of economic self-sufficiency and restoring the job base through manufacturing. "

Oh, Tony...

[Martin Coxall]

@Dale:

You are a tinker, aren't you? Suffice to say, I consider them the same thing, whereas you clearly don't. Which means we have a terminology problem. But, to be honest, I think we're boring everybody else so we should probably stop blathering on about it.

[Martin Coxall]

@Tony Makara:

I agree that the Labour Party has sold its soul, and the working man is increasingly feeling inclined to vote BNP instead. And that's a great tragedy.

However, I honestly don't see how we could rebuild Britain's manufacturing industry in a way that could ever be profitable with China or India, I really don't. And yes, I realise that this party is partly to blame for that, but that's ancient history to me.

In practice, we have to accept that Britain's time as an Manufacturing superpower is gone for good, and we need to find a way to ensure a self-sufficient Britain and Europe on as many resources as possible, and bring everybody else into the Knowledge economy.

A small task, then.

[Tony Makara]

Mike A and Martin Coxall, manufacturing and supplying our own market is an idea that will have to come. Relying on imports means we cannot have sustained low interest rates because it will weaken our currency and lead to inflation. So we are forced to adopt a strong pound policy and higher interest rates most of the time. The only way out is to supply our home market and we need a manufacturing base to do that. It is something that will happen, out of necessity if not out of choice for many.

On the Labour party, I agree that they have done the dirty on their supporters. After all those years of opposition Labour MPs cast away their convictions to get a chance to 'play' at being the government. Now the party is so power-orientated it only attracts power-seeking types. Grubbing little functionaries who big-headed and empty-hearted, quite the opposite of the Old Labour type politician who was big-hearted and empty-headed. Out of the two though the old Labour party at least believed in something other than itself. The current Labour party is like an old whore who cakes herself in make-up and thinks she is pretty when in reality she is past her sell-by date and to the rest of the world is as ugly as sin.

[Yet Another Anon]

I agree that the Labour Party has sold its soul, and the working man is increasingly feeling inclined to vote BNP instead. And that's a great tragedy.
At the last local elections the BNP vote was down mostly, compared to last year both main partys vote was up - the BNP have not emerged as the largest party on any Local Authorities, they continue rapidly to lose seats once they have taken them, or the councillors say they don't understand what is going on at meetings and resign, or defect and a parliamentary level they have yet to make any impact.

if Cameron is made to fall on his sword after a 2010 defeat, who is the successor?
I rather suspect if David Cameron was to be succeeded it would be David Davis or Liam Fox.

I expect the General Election to be 11 June 2009 and Labour to win a 4th term holding or even a bit increasing it's majority, but I expect the Conservative Party to make modest gains in votes and seats and for the Liberal Democrats to have a setback, I don't think David Cameron will ever be PM but I think the Conservatives will do well enough for him to be able to continue and fight a General Election in 2013 or 2014. By then I think Priti Patel will probably succeed him and lead the Conservatives to victory some time between 2018 and 2024.