Conservative Home's debate blogs

Advertising

  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« Hague set to return as Shadow Foreign Secretary | Main | Hustings Report (10): Newport »

Comments

John O'Neill

It means IDS is still labouring under the tragic delusion that the termination of his leadership came about mainly as a result of disloyalty and conspiracies. The truth, as we all know, is that his Parliamentary colleagues got sick and tired of IDS's errors under pressure, attempts at blame-shifting and general incompetence.

It's too dreadful to imagine where the party might be today if he'd survivd to lead us into a general election.

John Coulson

IDS was a decent man undone by people who were acting in the shadows. His was a case of promotion too fast, we still haven't learnt the lessons of Major, Hague and IDS. Even now......

I must apologise for my comments on the previous blog. Sorry.

Daniel Vince-Archer

"It's too dreadful to imagine where the party might be today if he'd survivd to lead us into a general election."

While not being somebody who places too much stock by opinion polls, it might be worth noting that Iain Duncan Smith consistently rated higher than Michael Howard.

Terry Keen

I think that IDS could be good as a Shadow DWP Secretary or even International Development.

Ed R

It's hard to imagine a former leader, the first elected by the party membership, offered or accepting the role of shadowing what's widely perceived as the lowest-ranked position in Cabinet (international development). I think IDS has shown that you don't need to face down a minister every week to do sterling work. I think he should continue as he has been, although attending Shadow Cabinet meetings as a 'shadow minister without portfolio'.

Long Term Chap

One recalls - who does not? - the example of Alec Douglas-Home serving under Ted "Grocer" Heath. If IDS and Hague were to rejoin in cadet positions under young Cameron it would send out the right message to the voters.

Daniel Vince-Archer

Editor, don't know if you've noticed but BBCi seem to have quoted extensively from your exclusive text.

Samuel Coates

I sent them a big email about it Daniel, they didn't refer to this website at all, it didn't mention anything about where, how or when he announced his endorsement.
It was just paraphrasing IDS' article to ConHome. Not even a link!
Competetion...

Chris

The link to the blog was in a dropdown at the side. Throughout the ladership contest the BBC have frequently linked to this blog.

Oberon Houston

Just how Right Wing is Cameron? Is it clear to anyone?

Is he just a DD with youth and charm?
...or is he the same for Ken Clarke without the EU hugging tendancies?

As a centrist, I think its obvious which version I prefer, even if its for the simple fact that we will get massacred at the next election if he starts pcking up his cabinet with the likes of IDS etc. and Brown will go on a rampage in celebration.

I feel ill.

malcolm thomas

I think IDS parallels well with Sir Keith Joseph. Both are thinkers, keen to set a new direction for politics, neither natural speakers but both acquired the skill. Keith came before Thatcher, and informed her platform. IDS has done the same for Cameron.

OBE - Cameron seized support from key eurosceptics right from the start. I don't believe they were all pi$$ed at the conference.

loyal_tory

"Is he just a DD with youth and charm?
...or is he the same for Ken Clarke without the EU hugging tendancies?"

You are confusing who is supporting DC now with what he supports. What DC wants to do is reposition the Conservative Party so people see it as in the middle between New Labour on the one hand and where they currently see the Conservative Party on the other. This runs through all of his speeches and soundbites.

The EPP issue is a distraction. The candidates' positions were simply determined by calculations made during the Westminster-phase of the leadership election. The old pro-Europe/Ken Clarke wing of the party is dead. The divide in the party today is between those who believe the party must triangulate between New Labour and "Old" Tories to become electable, and those who think we should offer the electorate solutions based on applying conservative principles to the new problems they face. Both approaches offer a distinct way of moving on from the past.

If you think elections are won by moving the Conservative Party closer to the positions of the other main parties, you should vote for Cameron. If you believe, on the other hand, that elections are won by developing new policies to solve problems that have eluded past governments of both parties, then you should probably vote for Davis.

The electoral record of these two distinct approaches is mixed. The Tories moved closer to the centre in 1992 (victory) but also in 1997 (defeat). On the other hand the Tories went for "modernising" themselves by developing more radical policies in 1979, 1983 and 1987, and won.

More recently, some argue the party moved away from the centre in 2001 and 2005, which on many issues, eg asylum seekers, immigration it did. However, those two election campaigns also continued the more cautious conservatism of the 1990s on taxes and the public services.

Policy or positioning modernisation is the choice the party has had in this leadership election.

wasp

The policy modernisation that is necessary is to balance the Thatcher-Blair consensus. Much as posters on this site may moan life in Britain is pretty good, and there is no demand for another great upheaval.

loyal_tory

"The policy modernisation that is necessary is to balance the Thatcher-Blair consensus. Much as posters on this site may moan life in Britain is pretty good, and there is no demand for another great upheaval."

This may indeed be true but the party's decision not to offer "another great upheaval" (what others might call more radical reform) did not result in moving the party much beyond its vote share in 1997.

Life in Britain may be pretty good, but our public services are not.

John Coulson

Malcolm - I don't think IDS can be compared to Keith Joseph. Joseph was supremely intelligent. He had a Fellowship of All Souls, he changed the thinking of theTory Party completely - Thatcherism should actually be Josephism. IDS is a decent man but not even his biggest supporter could seriously compare the 2 in terms of intellect.
I have maintained thatin the late 70's our intellectuals were bold and prepared to think aloud with clarity and purpose. However, the media's propensity to ridicule intellect has lead to out intellectuals (Willets, Letwin etc.) becoming afraid to make bold ideas public.

Michael McGowan

Well if life in Britain is pretty good, which in some senses it is, I should surely vote for Blair and Brown because I have no confidence that it will be any better under Cameron. In fact it could be worse. Better the devil I know than the one I don't.

As for the "great upheaval" straw man, most of Davis' ideas on public services are mainstream thinking among social democrats throughout Continental Europe.....even though the parochial Jack Stone and others seem to think them "extremely right-wing", whatever that means.

Jack Stone

The notion that David Cameron is going to be a figurehead I think is about as ridiculous as you can get.
In this campaign he as had a clear stragedy about where the party should be heading and that he as had the grit and the courage to stick to that stragedy,
People should not underestimate DC as you don`t get where he as as fast as he as if you haven`t got something very special about you.

Michael McGowan

Jack, he may be God's gift to politics (we shall see) but let's get real here. To date, his career has been an almost Edwardian odyssey of wealth, patronage and connections. Like the young Churchill, he is the consummate political insider who has been fast-tracked by his contacts at every stage of his career. Plenty of talented people left Oxford in the same year as Cameron with a first in PPE. How many were then catapulted into the role of special adviser to the Chancellor? Osborne is just the same.

James Maskell

No big suprize to see IDS come out for Cameron. The drugs issue wont be nice to digest but as long as we have an anti-drugs Shadow Home Sec thats fine.

No demand for an upheaval...there is a demand for it, the Iraq war helped along with concerns over licensing and ID cards. The economy is faltering and the news today that we are going to have to work to the age of 68 wont go down well, especially considering the deal done with the unions so they can retire at 60.

One person only last week in my ward publically apologised for voting Labour in the last election. They will almost certainly go to the Tories now.

Peter

The only surprise in terms of the annoucement was how long it took to come out. I think we all know that IDS blames David Davis for being part of the reason for him losing his job. Again through the problem again is the drug issue as Cornerstone views are not anywhere near the same as Cameron.

Barbara Villiers

Does anybody want to contribute to a fund to get Jack Stone spelling lessons? 'Stradegy'?

Either he is dyslexic or a Fleet Street hack.

Samuel Coates

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4482986.stm
The BBC article has two related links sections - one which you have to click on to see which still includes Ken Clarke and Fox, and has a link to an article on this site months ago - and one which is visible from the article page and designed for the article in particular.
No mention of ConHome there (or even CSJ for that matter), and ConHome was not referenced in the article as the place where IDS announced it.

Rick

Does anybody want to contribute to a fund to get Jack Stone spelling lessons? 'Stradegy'?


Education ! Education ! Education !

Living proof of failed Blairism !

Samuel Coates

"Does anybody want to contribute to a fund to get Jack Stone spelling lessons? 'Stradegy'?

Either he is dyslexic or a Fleet Street hack."

So what?

Even Gordon Brown is dyslexic from what i've heard, many top businessman and politicians are.

Some people are very astute but their minds aren't quite so good at spelling, and are very conscious of this.

Spelling mistakes are one of the little things that irk me, but theres no need to resort to personal jibes - it reflects much more on your character and ability than theirs.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home

Subscribe

  • Conservative Home's
    free eMailing List
    Enter your name and email address below:
    Name:
    Email:
    Subscribe    
    Unsubscribe