Ian Duncan Smith

Cork · 28-10-2003 7:07pm #1

Ian Duncan Smith

In a country that lost Rory Quinn +Michael Noonan after the last general election - charging leaders does not have much of an impact reviving the fortunes of a political party.

The Conservatives are a much devided party - i never had much time for them - But I think Ian Duncan Smith should stay.

www.backids.com

mike65 · 28-10-2003 7:28pm

The British Labour party sure think that! The Tory party has been in decline since they could'nt bring themselves to elect Micheal Heseltine part leader in 1990.

Mike.

dathi1 · 28-10-2003 7:30pm

Yes but the westland affair makes a bags of it for him. IDS is out and Doris Karlof is in.

flogen · 28-10-2003 9:52pm

what i find so funny is how he tried to turn from 'nice guy' to 'hard as nails' in the space of a week. that to me showed he was getting abit desperate.
The fact is, if i was a voter in England, Id certainly vote Lib Dem, they may be an echo of Labour, but they took the best stance on the war, they seem to have some good policies and (although this is'nt as important as good ideas) out of the three their leader seems the most trustworthy and likable.
I mean Blair has proven time and time again that hes a wolf in sheeps clothing, hes a bare-faced liar and his links with Bush only serve to make him look worse.
and IDS is a weak speaker, with a serious identity crisis, no human features what-so-ever(not even false ones, anyone see him having a pint with students???) and no ability to lead or to control a party.

Kennedy seems to have full support of his party, some good and realistic ideas and I predict the Lib Dems and not the Torys will gain most from the loss of trust in Labour in the next election (that is to say once nothing amazingly bizarre happens between now and then)

Flogen

shotamoose · 29-10-2003 10:14am

Originally posted by flogen
what i find so funny is how he tried to turn from 'nice guy' to 'hard as nails' in the space of a week.

Yeah, his image management has not been the best. In an effort to appear tough, driven yet humorous, he responded at the Tory conference to a question about taking up shooting that "The only real shooting I want to do over the next year-and-a-half is shooting Tony Blair". Which just sounds psychotic.

People in Britain now seem to treat the Tories as something to be pitied and laughed at rather than hated or feared. And when that documentary about racism in the police was shown, a reporter on BBC's 6 o'clock news finished off his item on it by saying that "even the Tories have condemned this latest example of racism" or something similar ...

Éomer of Rohan · 29-10-2003 10:22am

It's going to be Howard getting it - but since this is almost certainly going to be their choice, I think IDS should stay - from an entirely neutral point of view.

The man has a flare for the dramatic and in fighting for his political life he has made quite a few good speeches - it's a problem though that this stops when he tries to argue about every day issues - and even more of a problem that the press are being highly unsympathetic to the Conservative Party in general.

I was listening to Radio Five Live yesterday evening between about two and six (yes we student's have nothing better to do lol) and it appears that the more vociferous members of the tory party want Portillo (backed by 56% in the poll of the public in general) or they want Ken Clarke, (backed by 27% of the same poll, in which IDS scored 7%). In my opinion both of the above have had their shot and screwed it - Ken Clarke has come to be far too pro-Euro to be accepted by the core of conservatives and Michael Portillo...well, where to begin eh? So, given that Clarke and Portillo aren't actually going to stand for leadership (at this point) I would say that by the end of the day it will be Howard leading the Tories (and boy but TB got off lightly on Prime Minister's Questions didn't he?!)

The division among the Tories is nothing new - it was division among the Tories that spawned Major's unification attempt with 'Back to Basics' which if I remember correctly led to a leadership attempt by John Redwood. It is heightened however that President Tony has been 'doing a Democrat' as Michael Moore would inevitably describe it - adopting more and more policies that were once the dividing point between Labour and Tory - and the best example of this is the utterly ridiculous and racist new legislation brought in by David Blunkett.

In order to clarify the above statement, allow me to point out that foreign people are not going to be particularly well informed on the current passport legislation in the UK - especially if most of them are illiterate and being smuggled into the country illegally; how the bloody hell then is a prison sentence of up to two years going to help things? Things like THAT are traditionally what the Tories have propounded - but New Labour have pinched them and in the process have done it in a new more flashy more media friendly way, and the press lap at their heels for it.

Tha Gopher · 29-10-2003 6:42pm

The main fault he has had is that he cannot get himself on television. Before last week he would be on the news maybe once in a fortnight. Nothing he ever said to Blair managed to make it onto the news. Some might say the news organisations are pro Labour(and seeing as not one news report last night mentioned Blair being booed at those television awards in their reports I would be inclined to think so too)
But he squandered so many chances to savage Blair that he is simply too quiet. Where was he when Robin Cook claimed that Blair knew Iraq couldnt pose a significant threat? It was up to him to keep this story in the news. He didnt,and most of the public have long forgotten it. He fails to constantly remind the public what a liar Blair is. He has just missed too many good opportunities to bring him down.

mike65 · 29-10-2003 6:43pm

Has anyone else wondered about the real-estate the the Irish meedja have given over to what is a second tier political story from another country? I know that the
party that governs the UK is important to this sceptic Isle
for various reasons but it feels like overkill to me. I bet Fine Girl wish they could get this sort of coverage in the UK...!

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan · 29-10-2003 6:51pm

Quoted from Mike 65
sceptic Isle

LOL.

Quoted from Mike 65
Fine Girl

LMAO

Quoted from The Gopher
But he squandered so many chances to savage Blair that he is simply too quiet. Where was he when Robin Cook claimed that Blair knew Iraq couldnt pose a significant threat?

He didn't want to rock the boat in case Britain didn't go to war in which case he undermines the whole basis of his party's foreign policy; it's alright now for him to put the boot in but he knew precisely the significance of Robin Cook's revelations and failed to pounce on them because that would have set the party line in stringent contrast to the pro-war vote that they took in Parliament. Conservatives stand for a strong Britain in world affairs and being the Pinky to America's Brain is how they manage this facade - again, something they do not wish to upset by allowing America to go it alone.

dahamsta · 29-10-2003 7:24pm

He's gone.

mike65 · 29-10-2003 7:27pm

Cue six months in-fighting...

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan · 29-10-2003 7:29pm

90 votes to 75

That is terrible - and one majorly divided party. I actually feel sorry for the guy despite the fact that he represents one of the most right wing parties in Britain.

As for six months of in-fighting, the heavies haven't really put their head above the parapet...yet.

secret_squirrel · 29-10-2003 7:53pm

its typical behaviour of the current tory party, just when it they start looking vaguely electable again and are making gains in the polls they press the self-destruct yet again.

Personally I feel sorry for IDS, ok politically he was a bit of a lightweight and an obvious compromise candidate for leader but they have finally managed to cobble together some vote winning policies, and I think they might have come close at the next election. Now Im sure most of their divisions that IDS managed to get put on the backburner will come to the fore once more. Cue another 4 years of spin and that inane grin.

Éomer of Rohan · 29-10-2003 7:56pm

Because Labour are just itching for a Euro based fight which will pull the Tories apart limb from limb - which is why I thin Ken Clarke is a good compromise for Tories; Britain will join Europe like it or not and with KC in charge, they have an electable leader and someone who can criticise the Euro but push the inevitability of it and cut a really good deal for the UK.

spongebob · 29-10-2003 8:50pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Britain will join Europe like it or not and with KC in charge, they have an electable leader

Ken probably wont apply, Portaloo is the other electable Tory leader except that ......

Howard will get the boot just after the next general election after the Tories storm to third place in the polls.... my prediction.

M

Capt'n Midnight · 29-10-2003 9:21pm

IMHO Maggie & co. made the tories unelectable for a generation, so it as long as Labour don't screw up it doesn't matter if they have a leader...

If you look at the effect of first past the post - (ignoring the votes from NI.) the number of seats rises exponentially with the % of vote - for about 20-25% more votes you get 10 times as many seats. 10% increase in votes gets you about three times as many seats...

My preferred result would be with Lib-Dems holding the balance of power - preferably but not necessarily with labour..

Bring Back Boris !

dahamsta · 29-10-2003 9:30pm

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Bring Back Boris !

LOL

sceptre · 29-10-2003 9:33pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
90 votes to 75

That is terrible - and one majorly divided party.

It is. If I gave a damn about the future of the Tories (word of Irish origin, go figure:D) I'd say that it's better for IDS to lose 90-75 than to win 83-82. At least the vote was such that Michael Spicer probably didn't have to grimace when announcing the result.

SkyNoos will be in their element now after their IDS Countdown clock being proved right.

mike65 · 29-10-2003 10:17pm

It already looks like Michael Howard will get the nod unopposed...he'll win no new votes for the Tories esp if he starts banging on about the Euro and soveignty. I suspect most ppl have had enough of that for a lifetime.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan · 29-10-2003 10:29pm

The problem is that IDS was a compromise candidate between the Euro-divided sides of the Tories (which is really part of a larger economic ideological split fostered by Thatcher) and effectively so is Howard - the Tories have to resolve that issue before they can then go to the country. Either that or try and knock labour back into the left wing lol.

dahamsta · 29-10-2003 10:30pm

Originally posted by sceptre
word of Irish origin, go figure

Interesting. Enlightenment please.

mike65 · 29-10-2003 10:36pm

Er double post sort of....

mike65 · 29-10-2003 10:37pm

As ppl insist on saying - Google is your friend -

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/pursuit

Mike.

dahamsta · 29-10-2003 11:50pm

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?Dict=&define=tory

...maybe?

I did Google, but it's such a common term. Sulk.

Thanks Mike,
adam

sceptre · 30-10-2003 12:02am

Originally posted by dahamsta
Interesting. Enlightenment please.

During the Exclusion crisis (when James II succeeded Charles II as king of that island to the east of us), the defenders of Crown supremacy took to name-calling those whom they accused of dragging the country back to a civil war as Scots-Presbyterian outlaws or "Whiggamores" and the Whigs returned the compliment by claiming that behind the disingenuous arguments to stand by Church and throne, their adversaries were nothing more than Irish-Catholic rebels or "Tories", from the Gaelic toraighe, meaning a bog-trotter or bandit.

(ripped from Simon Schama's A History of Britain, Vol 2, The British Wars 1603-1776. I have /never/ used the word "disingenuous")

Seems the Tories have always been regarded as thieves.

dahamsta · 30-10-2003 9:32am

Glad I asked, thanks sceptre.

I have used the word disingenuous, and I'm not ashamed of doing so. But then I'm a pretentious wanker.

adam

Redleslie · 30-10-2003 1:48pm

The conservatives can't make Michael Howard leader surely?? If they do, it's the end of their ridiculous party, unless they just know they're going to lose the next election or two and want someone to take all the blame.

Go Figure! · 30-10-2003 3:09pm

Yes, if the Conservatives think that Michael Howard is going to change their fortunes then they are seriously mistaken!

secret_squirrel · 30-10-2003 6:35pm

Actually I think Michael Howard might surprise you, especially if as it seems to be tending towards, he'll get the job without contest. He's got enough 'presence' to get media attention away from Blair and he's enough of a heavyweight to keep most of his own party in line. He's got it made if him and Ken Clarke come to a deal. I reckon Ken Clarke will get one of the major shadow cabinet roles. Chancellor or Home office.

Howard also has a reputation as a man who's prepared to take a position and stick to it. He has a reputation of calling a spade a spade, something I think the Uk public might go for after 8 years of labour spin.

mike65 · 30-10-2003 7:25pm

Originally posted by dahamsta
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?Dict=&define=tory

...maybe?

I did Google, but it's such a common term. Sulk.

Thanks Mike,
adam

Doh! That site is deadly as every word in a defintion
is hyperlinked to its own defintion...hence the balls up!

Mike.

Cork · 31-10-2003 8:30pm

Originally posted by Go Figure!
Yes, if the Conservatives think that Michael Howard is going to change their fortunes then they are seriously mistaken!

No, I disagee.

The Conservatives are one of the most successful partys in the world.

Labour has embraced many free economics principles which is a great thing.

But - opposition partys are needed & their time will come again.

Éomer of Rohan · 31-10-2003 10:04pm

Cork, you hardly back up the disagreement deriving from the quoted excerpt!!

As for the Conservatives being the most successful party in the world, I could not agree more! They have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of every intelligent person who votes for them and have convinced them that free market economics are a good things is so far as western europe benefits and then when people point out that the lesser developed world suffers intolerable cruelties due to free marketeering and 'structural adjustment' they shrug their shoulders and act so blatantly uncaring that the electorate just assume that they are right! It's a large scale version of my own expert blaggings into our out of any situation!

Cork · 01-11-2003 12:27am

convinced them that free market economics are a good things is so far as western europe benefits

The Labour Party belives in Free Market Economics.

This has been the greatest sucess of the Conservatives.

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

regi · 01-11-2003 12:26pm

So they'll probably elect Michael Howard. I bet he wishes he'd never done this interview

sceptre · 01-11-2003 2:18pm

Originally posted by Cork
The Labour Party belives in Free Market Economics.

Define "Free Market Economics" (or at least clarify what /you/ understand it to be), there's a good kid.

Bonus marks for explaining how there's a similarity between Conservative party economic policy of say 1986 and Labour party economic policy of 2003.

Depending on your definition I probably believe pretty strongly in "Free Market Economics". I've written pages here explaining why Con 80s economics was pretty useless though, hence my question

De Rebel · 01-11-2003 3:31pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Cork, you hardly back up the disagreement deriving from the quoted excerpt!!

Please note that it is not Cork's practice to substantiate his opinions with Logic, Facts or Arguments.

Dasilva94 · 01-11-2003 3:47pm

Originally posted by sceptre
Define "Free Market Economics" (or at least clarify what /you/ understand it to be), there's a good kid.

Bonus marks for explaining how there's a similarity between Conservative party economic policy of say 1986 and Labour party economic policy of 2003.

Depending on your definition I probably believe pretty strongly in "Free Market Economics". I've written pages here explaining why Con 80s economics was pretty useless though, hence my question

Perhaps he means Kinnock's rejection and expulsion of the Labour militants in 1985 and also his refusal to countenance re-nationalisation of the privatised utilities which many view as paving the road to Blair's victory in 1997?

Cork · 01-11-2003 3:48pm

Free market economics - Supply/demand economics.

No longer do they line up behind narrow producer or worker interests.

New Labour's is very strong on competition.

New Labour is very Pro Business and Pro Worker.

Sicialism has came a long way since nationalising certain industies.

sceptre · 01-11-2003 4:24pm

Originally posted by Dasilva94
Perhaps he means Kinnock's rejection and expulsion of the Labour militants in 1985 and also his refusal to countenance re-nationalisation of the privatised utilities which many view as paving the road to Blair's victory in 1997?

Hmmm, well he could. What you've mentioned would come a little bit before the press release announcing "all new whiter than Daz" Labour but yeah, it'd be there at the birth of the idea and probably did contribute in a sizeable way towards making Labout re-electable. I'd argue that these were more stepping stones towards New Labour than anything resembling Tony Blair or John Smith taking on any Thatcherite (Mathus' classical, Minford's neo-classical or <cough> Friedman's monetarist economics) or even eclectic-Keynesian policies (like those espoused by Tobin and Hicks) but it would at least be something certainly worthy of a discussion.

Let's see...

Originally posted by Cork
Free market economics - Supply/demand economics.

/falls off chair laughing

Don't you think that's just a teensy-weensy bit vague (look up page one of any economics text)?
Any chance of a bit of expansion on the above?

Mercury_Tilt · 01-11-2003 4:39pm

This post has been deleted.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-11-2003 4:47pm

Free market economics - Supply/demand economics.

No longer do they line up behind narrow producer or worker interests.

Please explain what "free market economics" has to do with the conservatives ?
with reference to the way Scottish North Sea Oil revenues were wasted in a way that cause interest rates to rise, thus helping the investments of Tories & Cronies but in the process killed off Manufacuring Industry in the North East. (£650Bn btw - and that was back in the late 70's)
wtr to the way Rover was sold to Rolls Royce for £200m - who then sold it off for £800m as soon as decently possible to BMW - who bought it cos it would cost them twice as much to bring out a new model (though they used to call it "The English Patient")
Poll Tax (only the rich can vote !)
Closing down mines that were unprofitable, when it cost much more to pay the dole afterwards.
Spending so much on an unnecessary war that they very nearly lost. (one carrier or one cruise liner and game over.. had the argentinians tried a mass aerial attack ... If the USA hadn't provided so much logistical support, had they not handed over the Argentian's defense manuals etc..)

Socialism has came a long way since nationalising certain industies.

RAILTRACK / BT /Water Companies / (BNFL) - there are a lot of companies out there that may have to be re-nationalised since for safety reasons or simply because the Govt would have to spend so much on them it would be cheaper to buy the company..

Anyone remember Dublin GAS - worth £2m on the stock market , so our Govt invested £50m rather than buying them out.. ( ESB could have run them..)

Dasilva94 · 01-11-2003 5:14pm

Originally posted by sceptre
Hmmm, well he could. What you've mentioned would come a little bit before the press release announcing "all " Labour but yeah, it'd be there at the birth of the idea and probably did contribute in a sizeable way towards making Labout re-electable. I'd argue that these were more stepping stones towards New Labour than anything resembling Tony Blair or John Smith taking on any Thatcherite (Mathus' classical, Minford's neo-classical or <cough> Friedman's monetarist economics) or even eclectic-Keynesian policies (like those espoused by Tobin and Hicks) but it would at least be something certainly worthy of a discussion.

Well my analysis, not being a devotee of the dismal science,would be that the monetarist reforms of the Thatcher government were adopted by "all new whiter than Daz" Labour which devoid of a hard right tebbitite flavour resulted in their election. The 'winter of discontent' followed by the further leftward drift under Foot were far from vote winners. So one could say nu-Labour are the tories with a human face.

I think Howard will frighten off many voters and lead to another leadership vote with Portillo in the ascendant after the tories' loss at the next election.

Éomer of Rohan · 01-11-2003 9:15pm

Quoted from Cork
Socialism has came a long way since nationalising certain industies

Socialism is not about the nationalisation of industry - that would be left wing labour.

Cork · 01-11-2003 10:00pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Socialism is not about the nationalisation of industry - that would be left wing labour.

But Tony Blair has radically transformed the party away from a left wing party. The whole left/right thing is as gone as the Berlin Wall.

The Conservatives are searching for a policy platform to take on Labour. They won't win the next election but there is a future for them.

The Liberals are targeting vunerable tory seats - this will pay dividends for them.

But I think the Conservatives will be the main opposition party.

Éomer of Rohan · 01-11-2003 10:07pm

Quoted from Cork
But I think the Conservatives will be the main opposition party

Opposition to WHAT? Their own policies!? Labour have gone centre right and the only way in which the conservatives would do anything differently is Europe and even on that Conservatives can't agree!

Mind you, if Conservatives ran up in the North and weren't in fact pseudo-fascists (the candidates they run here are, not the party in general) I'd vote for them on the basis of no top up fees!

Capt'n Midnight · 01-11-2003 10:25pm

RE: Mind you, if Conservatives ran up in the North

When was the last time they ran up North ?
And when was the last time the Unionist MP's voted against a conservative Government on anything (except for NI issues) ?

AFAIK They have a pact that way...

sceptre · 01-11-2003 10:36pm

Originally posted by Cork
<snippity snip>

No chance of you actually answering the comments from myself and Cap'n Midnight (which were only mentioned because of the inane comments above) then? You know, the economics bits.

Cork · 01-11-2003 11:47pm

Tatcher bielved that government should promote competition but in general she believed that state intervention and involvement in the economy should be limited.

Thus, she engaged in a policy of privatising many state services.

Labour have gone centre right and the only way in which the conservatives would do anything differently is Europe and even on that Conservatives can't agree!

But New Labour was right. They have won 2 mandates from the British electorate. They will probably win the next election. This is a big endoursement to the policys that were adapted.

The Conservatives have to find policys that will engage the electorate. Charging Leaders won't change their fortines.

Éomer of Rohan · 02-11-2003 10:44am

Quoted from Capt'n Midnight
RE: Mind you, if Conservatives ran up in the North

The Conservatives do run up here but not in the Westminster Elections and the party members who come over here almost always end up joining the DUP.

Quoted from Cork
But New Labour was right. They have won 2 mandates from the British electorate. They will probably win the next election. This is a big endoursement to the policys that were adapted.

No it is no such endorsement; first of all, history has shown that an electorate is slow to act even when there is no alternative and when this is in terms of party politics, even slower still; there is as yet no alternative since all three parties generally voted for in Britain occupy the centre right; thus we have seen voter turnout decline, some in conscious and some in unconscious protest and of course we must then accept that whether the majority of people like it or not, the centre right has loaded the dice.

As for winning two mandates from the British electorate, these were based on false policies which Labour have failed to act on - case study one "Education Education Education - we will NOT introduce top up fees at THIS time or ANY time" - T. Blair, liar-at-law.

Cork · 02-11-2003 8:31pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

As for winning two mandates from the British electorate, these were based on false policies which Labour have failed to act on - case study one "Education Education Education - we will NOT introduce top up fees at THIS time or ANY time" - T. Blair, liar-at-law.

No party can make water tieght policys at election time and then hold on to promises for the life span of government.

Things change and governments need to adapt to changes in circumstance.

secret_squirrel · 02-11-2003 10:21pm

aaww come on lets not beat about the bush here, all parties will promise the earth come election time - knowing full well they only need to deliver about half of them to keep the proles happy.

You're being naive if you think any political party ever intends to deliver anything that they can get away with not delivering once the election is won...

Ian Duncan Smith

Comments