Alan Duncan tipped for big promotion

There is all sorts of gossipy speculation about David Cameron's first shadow cabinet including a suggestion in The Sunday Telegraph that Alan Duncan will be given a big job:

"The diminutive and dapper MP for Rutland and Melton has had a chequered front bench career, edging closer to one of the popular portfolios. Mr Duncan, 48, is currently shadow transport secretary. The wait for a post that will allow him to shine could be near an end, however, as Mr Cameron is said to have the highest regard for his relaxed, televisual style and appeal to younger voters. He was the first Tory MP openly to declare himself gay."

The consensus points to Osborne staying as Shadow Chancellor, Hague returning as Shadow Foreign Secretary and Fox moving to Home affairs.

Davis is expected to be demoted to Defence - a position he may refuse.  Replacing Davis with Fox will be controversial but one Cameroonie tells The Telegraph:

"Davis's reputation has fallen dramatically. There is no question in our minds that the leader of the Right is now Liam Fox."

The Davis-ites might be mollified with jobs for Davis allies.  Damian Green and Andrew Mitchell may be kept sweet with top jobs, for example.  The highly-regarded Nick Herbert, and close friend of Mr Davis, may also be given a junior role.

Oliver Letwin will oversee a comprehensive policy review and may also retain the environment portfolio.  This will be a controversial appointment as Mr Letwin's support for Kyoto environmentalism and his cautious approach to tax policies are strongly opposed by let-the-economy-grow conservatives.  Only yesterday sixty business leaders warned that Labour's tax rises threatened long-term decline for the UK economy.

Theresa May, Caroline Spelman and Boris Johnson are all expected to get big promotions.

Francis Maude is expected to stay as Chairman and will pursue a radical approach to candidate selection.  This may include a gold list of candidates for the most important target seats.

The Right will be watching to see if their leading lights are included around the top table.  If there are shadow cabinet positions for the likes of John Hayes and John Redwood the Right will be happy.  Many on the Right remember how John Major sidelined right-wing MPs after he was re-elected Tory leader in 1995 after defeating Mr Redwood in a confidence vote.

The Observer reports that Mr Cameron will begin his leadership with a speech heavy on themes, light on detail.  He will stress optimism, public services, climate change, social justice, social enterprise and work-life balance.

Comments

[Sam]

I have't wriggled away from anything in my life.

Saying that: "the objective of a political party is to seek power" does not deny the the fact that a political party, like all other political entities, is trying to apply a certain political agenda. You appear somewhat unique, requiring this to be explained to you on countless occasions- most people consider it obvious, but I think your are deliberately reading these posts in a simple-minded manner.

The political party's SPECIFIC objective, UNLIKE that of political interest groups, is to achieve POWER to implement its agenda. The original context of my post which you failed to consider, was that certain contributers to this debate ought to join a conservative interest group if they had no desire for the Conservative Party to attract supporters from outside its "core". For this is the objective of Political Parties like the Conservatives; gaining the power to apply their agenda, by looking outside their core-support.

If in future you refrain from this deliberate obtuse reading of posts as you so often do, you won't make the same mistake. The rest of this blog find it understandably patronising for me to have to keep explaining this to satisfy your special needs.

[James Hellyer]

"Saying that: "the objective of a political party is to seek power" does not deny the the fact that a political party, like all other political entities, is trying to apply a certain political agenda."

Yes it does. The formation of words slected is quite specific. It said that THE objective is power. Simple as that. Stop wriggling.

May I sggest you try and achieve some clarity, rather than belittling people who have read what you actually wrote.

"The rest of this blog find it understandably patronising for me to have to keep explaining this to satisfy your special needs."

It's nice that you feel able to speak for everyone else. When you've recovered from your self proclaimed omniscience, perhaps you should read this:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/resources/2005/12/comments_policy.html

[Sam]

James, I recall countless individuals who have, over the past few weeks, noticed your tactic of deliberately reading posts in an obtuse manner. Most people exercise common sense to understand each other's point of view. If one had to explain every iota of suggestion, contextual significance, and juxtaposition inherent in their point, soley for your benefit, it would make for length suited to a Dickensian Novel, not political discussion.

Your obtuse reading manner doesn't make for intelligent debate because the community assumes, perhaps wrongly in your case, that people on this blog have a base understanding of what a sentence is suggesting - particularly when presented in a specific context.

[James Hellyer]

"James, I recall countless individuals who have, over the past few weeks, noticed your tactic of deliberately reading posts in an obtuse manner."

I can count two. You and one other. Hardly "countless"

"Your obtuse reading manner doesn't make for intelligent debate because the community assumes, perhaps wrongly in your case, that people on this blog have a base understanding of what a sentence is suggesting - particularly when presented in a specific context."

I think most people assume that people write what they mean, as opposed to the exact opposite of it, as appears to be your wont. I suggest you try and develop a basis understanding of the sentence, so that you can be clear on what you mean, and then work on common courtesy.

[Sam]

James, I don't consider you stupid, which is why I conclude that you're being deliberatley obtuse in how you read postings.

The sound-minded, in the given context of differences between various political entities, realise that AS political entities, they all have a political agenda that they wish to spread. This is plainly obvious to most, and doesn't require repeating.

But in seeking to draw a distinction between political parties and interest groups by saying: "The objective of a political party is to seek power" doesn't deny that political parties have an agenda to spread. Just that their specific objective is to pursue power to do so.

As regards my common courtesy, I do not think it polite to patronise 99% of this thread by expressley stating the obvious. It's just you however, that pretends to require this dumbed-down approach. Once you earn my common courtesy, by amending your attitude to fellow conservatives, then I shall extend it to you.

[James Hellyer]

""The objective of a political party is to seek power" doesn't deny that political parties have an agenda to spread. Just that their specific objective is to pursue power to do so."

No, your original comment did not admit political parties have any agenda beyond gaining and maintaining power. That conveys a purely technocratic view of party politics - one I disagree with.

That you are unable to admit you phrased your comment badly, or have changed your mind, and instead insist upon insulting the intelligence of people who quite clearly have read what you actually said, only reflects discredit on you.

[Sam]

No James, My original comment did not require me to admit it - its damned obvious to the vast majority. People are sound-minded enough to understand the point within its context.

They did, and you don't, because you insist on playing this infantile game of reading posts in an obtusive manner.

[James Hellyer]

"No James, My original comment did not require me to admit it - its damned obvious to the vast majority. People are sound-minded enough to understand the point within its context."

Its context was you're rejection of the idea that a party should reflect the views of its supporters, and should instead have its objective the pursuit of power! That is an argument for a non-ideological and technocratic agenda!

"They did, and you don't, because you insist on playing this infantile game of reading posts in an obtusive manner."

Firstly, "obtusive" is not a word. Secondly, it is not obtuse to base any intepreatation of a sentence on the words used in that sentence and its context.

Grow up.

[Sam]

This is all invention on your part, through your obtuse(thanks for the tip) reading of posts, which is apparently incurable.

My point, that was accepted by most, was this: the objective of a political party is to win power to apply its agenda. Within the context, it was perfectly reasonable to leave this as "The objective of a political party is to seek power". Your obtuse reading of this statement OUT OF ITS CONTEXT has resulted in you interpreting it as wild affirmation that "Parties want power for power's sake, regardless of applying an agenda.

[James Hellyer]

"This is all invention on your part, through your obtuse(thanks for the tip) reading of posts, which is apparently incurable."

Yet strangely is based on exactly what you wrote and the context you wrote it in. As you cannot demonstrate that it's in any way misinterpreted or decontextualised, the fault is clearly on your ingracious part.

[Sam]

"Yet strangely is based on exactly what you wrote and the context you wrote it in. As you cannot demonstrate that it's in any way misinterpreted or decontextualised, the fault is clearly on your ingracious part."

I have on countless occassion in this very thread, its there for all to see. Check again James, you're being careless.

[James Hellyer]

"I have on countless occassion in this very thread, its there for all to see."

No you haven't. Completely rewriting your point and then hurling around insults is not the same as showing how your original point was misrepresented (when it wasn't).

[Sam]

James, I thinks my argument has been repeated and demonstrated to ad nauseam. It's somewhat a relief that I disagree with you on this issue, as the vast majority of Conservatives seem to disagree with you on almost everything else. As you're the kind of person who will never admit he's wrong then it's rather futile to engage in your childish games any longer.

I hope you're sensible enough to give a Cameron-led Conservative Party a chance, before throwing your toys out the pram with Hitchens and the other malcontents.

[James Hellyer]

Sam, your argument had been rephrased and rewritten ad nauseum, because you're incapable of admitting that your origibal point was either a) wrong or b) so badly written it said something you didn't mean!

" the vast majority of Conservatives seem to disagree with you on almost everything else."

There you go claiming to speak for vast swathes of people again! Get real.

[Parajumpers Jakke]

What Style of Parajumpers Denali Leather-based Down Jackets Excellent Fit What Physique Shape?