Who should lead the Tories now?
Kazcaper
06-05-2005, 14:36
As Michael Howard will stand down as leader of the Conservatives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4521941.stm), have you any thoughts? I personally didn't mind Howard and think it's a shame he's stepping down. I do know a lot of people on this forum disagree with that ;) And that's fair enough. But who would both the left-wing types - and the Tory supporters themselves - see as a good candidate to lead the Tories now?
As Michael Howard will stand down as leader of the Conservatives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4521941.stm), have you any thoughts? I personally didn't mind Howard and think it's a shame he's stepping down. I do know a lot of people on this forum disagree with that ;) And that's fair enough. But who would both the left-wing types - and the Tory supporters themselves - see as a good candidate to lead the Tories now?
Poll coming.
Look for the guy with -666 on his forhead... hes the AntiSoros :D
Lacadaemon
06-05-2005, 14:39
I think Howard should stay.
Jeruselem
06-05-2005, 14:58
You guys can have John Howard of Australia for the Tories party.
He's over 60, and even looks a little like Michael Howard. Same policies too.
Portillo! At least then the news would be entertaining ;)
Eynonistan
06-05-2005, 15:10
Please let it be John Redwood! He's hillarious!
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Politics/Pix/pictures/2003/02/20/redwood.jpg
Pure Metal
06-05-2005, 15:14
who should lead the tories? whoever is least likely of bringing them victory.
Alien Born
06-05-2005, 15:28
who should lead the tories? whoever is least likely of bringing them victory.
Well that does not eliminate anyone, except Gordon Brown :D
Lacadaemon
06-05-2005, 15:32
He wouldn't win - well I don't think he would win - but if Boris Johnson took over, that would be pretty damn cool.
Kazcaper
08-05-2005, 01:02
who should lead the tories? whoever is least likely of bringing them victory.Like Charles Kennedy? ;) His victory wasn't as good as we had all expected!
Draconis Nightcrawlis
08-05-2005, 01:05
They should get another woman leader, that way they'll go and get the feminist vote :D
Kazcaper
08-05-2005, 01:08
They should get another woman leader, that way they'll go and get the feminist vote :DAh, yes. Whatever people think of Maggie, at least she fought for her principles (as even the considerably left-wing Tony Benn acknowledged on election night).
I'm a Labour Party member and activist but I would have to say David Cameron (wasn't an option in the poll) - atleast he has youth on his side, seems to be something the tories lack these days.
Howevery, who knows???
Will Howard stay on?? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4524587.stm)
Nimzonia
08-05-2005, 01:16
Like Charles Kennedy? ;) His victory wasn't as good as we had all expected!
Who expected the Lib Dems to win, really?
They're stronger now than they've been for about 80 years, that's probably good enough for them.
Kazcaper
08-05-2005, 01:29
Who expected the Lib Dems to win, really?
They're stronger now than they've been for about 80 years, that's probably good enough for them.Yes, they definitely made good progress, but considering they had good advantages on their sides such as their opposition to Blair's illegal little war and the weakness of the Tories in terms of electoral confidence and a strong, appealing message to the electorate, I expected them to do better.
If they can not do as well as expected at this point, can one really expect them to do better - and potentially form an opposition/government - once Iraq and all of Blair's other faults are no longer political issues?
Keruvalia
08-05-2005, 01:46
But who would both the left-wing types - and the Tory supporters themselves - see as a good candidate to lead the Tories now?
TIN! :D
Afghregastan
08-05-2005, 01:59
Tony Blair of course. He's always been thatcher with a smiley face anyways. Why not just acknowledge it? Oh, that would require honesty.
Something he's not quite capable of. (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=30&ItemID=7803)
Nimzonia
08-05-2005, 02:09
John Redwood. He's such a clown, we need never worry about the Tories again!
Winston S Churchill
08-05-2005, 02:09
Yes, they definitely made good progress, but considering they had good advantages on their sides such as their opposition to Blair's illegal little war and the weakness of the Tories in terms of electoral confidence and a strong, appealing message to the electorate, I expected them to do better.
If they can not do as well as expected at this point, can one really expect them to do better - and potentially form an opposition/government - once Iraq and all of Blair's other faults are no longer political issues?
Ironically the Tories took more seats from the Liberal Dems than the Liberal Dems did from the Tories... The Lib Dems benefited from the anti-war vote most likely, but the Tories had a rather respectable election in their own right. I expect they'll be back in power within five years, either winning the next General Election outright or hanging the parliament and forcing another election within a year so that one party can achieve a majority capable of carrying out its policies. Labour's success really stems from its shift to the center to bring in the moderate middle class and the socially conservative working class. Moving away from the left was the main reason for their huge majority to begin with, they essentially had to accept free-market and supply-side economics stressed by Thatcher to come back from their defeats in the 80's. Thatcherism succeeded in more or less marginalizing socialism as a mainstream view and forcing right-ward tilt. Blair I think started offending the British middle class by eroding elements of tradition, if the Tories come back in, the fox-hunting ban will be done away with, its not a vote winner for Labour or the Liberal Dems, but a vote loser in some areas, much like the assault-weapons ban was here.
Nimzonia
08-05-2005, 02:13
If they can not do as well as expected at this point, can one really expect them to do better - and potentially form an opposition/government - once Iraq and all of Blair's other faults are no longer political issues?
I thought the Lib Dems were only expected to get 53 seats. They did 9 better, which was enough for Charlie to declare 'A new era in British politics'.
Of course if it were not for the bias in the electoral system, the tories would of done much better, making it a hung parliament or giving blair a tiny majority.
The bias in the electoral system favours Labour considerably (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3846695)
I believe the leader should be David Cameron or Charlie Osbourne (is that his name?) Young tories with a new vision and vigour. The Tories need to be committed to the free market but more socially liberal, in essence, move towards libertarianism
Kazcaper
08-05-2005, 11:42
I thought the Lib Dems were only expected to get 53 seats. They did 9 better, which was enough for Charlie to declare 'A new era in British politics'.Yes indeed, but the point I was making was that there is an argument - not necessarily one I agree with, incidentally - that this was their 'big chance' to really clean up - with serious disillusionment with both the Tories and Labour, the Lib Dems could have done exceptionally well. Some people honestly felt that it was not impossible that they would win. While I disagree that they could have won, I can see the point of view about this election being their chance to excel.
They did not not do well, of course. They just remain the third party, that's all.
I believe the leader should be David Cameron or Charlie Osbourne (is that his name?) Young tories with a new vision and vigour.I think part of the Tories' problem over the last number of years is that their leaders have not been charismatic (particuarly Duncan Smith). Perhaps bringing in someone younger as leader would help alleviate this particular issue, and make some of the electorate view them in a different light. However, the flip side is that this could divide the party again - some of the older types may have more authoritarian views than the younger ones, and not appreciate their takes on some issues. That's a stereotyped view, of course, but I think there's possibly some truth to it somewhere. Difficult one - there's advantages and disadvantages.
Gataway_Driver
08-05-2005, 11:48
BORIS JOHNSON, just as you don't tell Liverpool :D
William Hague!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111
Praetonia
08-05-2005, 12:13
Michael Portilo... but he's left politics... because he's the only sane one there...
ProMonkians
08-05-2005, 12:41
BORIS JOHNSON, just as you don't tell Liverpool :D
Seconded
Vtorbetin
08-05-2005, 13:21
For me, it has to be David Davis or Malcolm Rifkind. I think Rifkind would do a good job of uniting the party and making them seem strong, so he'd be my personal favourite. Plus he's Scottish, so he might be able to turn around the party's fortunes up north. It'll probably be Davis, though.
Westmorlandia
08-05-2005, 13:35
The only two politicians with enough charisma and clout are Hague and Clarke, neither of whom are on the poll. Clarke is actually a year older than Howard though (I reckon Howard might have had an eye to that when he said that he himself was too old to fight the next election as leader), and Hague is possibly damaged goods. But he is still a whole lot older and wiser than he was when he last led the party, and I wouldn't be surprised if his time came again. Maybe not this time around, but possibly the next.
No one else really has enough to win an election in my view. Davis has charisma but is a bit shifty. Rifkind is a drudge. And God save us all from John Redwood.