United kingdom...The curse of Thatcher?

[Reginald]

Speaking as someone who's politics are generally "Who has the best idea". I would be interested in other poster’s view of the current shambles that is British Tory politics.

(Please read all this with a healthy dose of IMHO)

When you look at the trials and tribulations within the Tory party, one can't help but wonder how much is still caused by the legacy of "The Iron Lady".

She created the environment that lead the Labour party to realise they had to change or face extinction, through the "Steptoe and son" era of M Foot, past the potentially brilliant opportunity of John Smith, sadly lost through early death. Through Kinnock and ultimately to the centre right Blair. Irrespective of political view this was always a kind of logical progression, a moving forward if you will. If I look at the same process within the Tory party I find the same is not necessarily true.

John Major. Failed because he couldn't bring the same result as Thatcher, in a way he failed because he simply wasn't Thatcher. He made some attempt to unify factions within his party, but at this point the European issue was gaining higher priority and
this worked against him. Combine that with some pretty shambolic work from his Chancellor and a healthy dose of looking the other way by the German Chancellor during "Black Wednesday" and his fate was pretty much sealed.

William Hague (When I hear his speaking now I realise that he should have waited, he certainly now appears far more statesman like than most around him). Was cursed by being "That little kid who cheered Thatcher on". He overestimated how important it was to the British people that a strong stand was made on Europe. The problem being that at his general election chance that seemed to be his only policy. It's also unfortunate that the person who guided this stance was a certain Mr M Portillo, who co-incidentally was fast to jump in and go for the job himself.

Ian Duncan Smith (IDS, which alas just reminds me of IBS...irritable bowel syndrome). One of the biggest backbench rebels and muck stirrers, demanded absolute loyalty from his party, and didn't get it! Elected by the entire party at grass roots level. A blazing example of why the majority may not always know best. Especially if that majority is almost all 65 year old thatcherites completely divorced from reality while drinking their G&Ts in the local oak clad Conservative club. Destroyed by the same longing for the "Good old days" as almost all before him. Amusingly in the last few weeks, he is called to justify his payment to his wife for work that may or may not have been done. He claimed that it was he who demanded the investigation...erm nope. In the same way as he claims it was he who demanded this vote of no confidence that ultimately removed him. Had that been the case he would have resigned (in the same way that John Major did). He didn't.

Now it looks like Michael Howard. So we go back, back to a man who is almost a throw back to the 80's. I'm sure that this will keep the blue rinse brigade happy. He may start his job with the stigma of being considered as having “Something of the night about him” a criticism levelled at him by ….yep a fellow Tory , the sexy (some mistake surely!) Ann Widdecombe.

I'm not expecting a change of government any year soon.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Reginald
Speaking as someone who's politics are generally "Who has the best idea". I would be interested in other poster’s view of the current shambles that is British Tory politics.

(Please read all this with a healthy dose of IMHO)

When you look at the trials and tribulations within the Tory party, one can't help but wonder how much is still caused by the legacy of "The Iron Lady".

She created the environment that lead the Labour party to realise they had to change or face extinction, through the "Steptoe and son" era of M Foot, past the potentially brilliant opportunity of John Smith, sadly lost through early death. Through Kinnock and ultimately to the centre right Blair. Irrespective of political view this was always a kind of logical progression, a moving forward if you will. If I look at the same process within the Tory party I find the same is not necessarily true.

John Major. Failed because he couldn't bring the same result as Thatcher, in a way he failed because he simply wasn't Thatcher. He made some attempt to unify factions within his party, but at this point the European issue was gaining higher priority and
this worked against him. Combine that with some pretty shambolic work from his Chancellor and a healthy dose of looking the other way by the German Chancellor during "Black Wednesday" and his fate was pretty much sealed.

William Hague (When I hear his speaking now I realise that he should have waited, he certainly now appears far more statesman like than most around him). Was cursed by being "That little kid who cheered Thatcher on". He overestimated how important it was to the British people that a strong stand was made on Europe. The problem being that at his general election chance that seemed to be his only policy. It's also unfortunate that the person who guided this stance was a certain Mr M Portillo, who co-incidentally was fast to jump in and go for the job himself.

Ian Duncan Smith (IDS, which alas just reminds me of IBS...irritable bowel syndrome). One of the biggest backbench rebels and muck stirrers, demanded absolute loyalty from his party, and didn't get it! Elected by the entire party at grass roots level. A blazing example of why the majority may not always know best. Especially if that majority is almost all 65 year old thatcherites completely divorced from reality while drinking their G&Ts in the local oak clad Conservative club. Destroyed by the same longing for the "Good old days" as almost all before him. Amusingly in the last few weeks, he is called to justify his payment to his wife for work that may or may not have been done. He claimed that it was he who demanded the investigation...erm nope. In the same way as he claims it was he who demanded this vote of no confidence that ultimately removed him. Had that been the case he would have resigned (in the same way that John Major did). He didn't.

Now it looks like Michael Howard. So we go back, back to a man who is almost a throw back to the 80's. I'm sure that this will keep the blue rinse brigade happy. He may start his job with the stigma of being considered as having “Something of the night about him” a criticism levelled at him by ….yep a fellow Tory , the sexy (some mistake surely!) Ann Widdecombe.

I'm not expecting a change of government any year soon.

The mistake the Tory party has made twice and is in danger of repeating with Howard is choosing a leader that the party wants, instead of choosing a leader that the electorate wants.

The majority of the membership of the Labour party are well to the left of Tony Blair, but they have learnt the lesson that choosing a leader who agrees with the party means losing elections. Had the Tories worked this out last time round, they would have elected Ken Clarke and might have a chance at the next election.

I think I have already heard the clip of Paxman interviewing Howard about 5 times. For those who don't know, Paxman asked exactly the same question 14 times in successionand Howard tried every time to answer a different question - a classic political interview. Every time it is played more people will think Howard is unwilling to give a straight answer.

Problem is that as the Tories self-destruct, we end up with a one party state.

[JamesM]

I feel the problem with the Tories is that they're torn between appealing to the party faithful and appealing to enough people to actually get them back into power. These two constituencies no longer overlap.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Reginald
John Major. Failed because he couldn't bring the same result as Thatcher, in a way he failed because he simply wasn't Thatcher. He made some attempt to unify factions within his party, but at this point the European issue was gaining higher priority and

Whenever they wheel major out to give his opinion on something I cant help thinking (in the jaundiced light of Bliars leadreship), "Gosh! what an honest upstanding gentleman, just the sort of chap to be a good PM!" ermm..... hang on a tick...


Now it looks like Michael Howard. So we go back, back to a man who is almost a throw back to the 80's. I'm sure that this will keep the blue rinse brigade happy. He may start his job with the stigma of being considered as having “Something of the night about him” a criticism levelled at him by ….yep a fellow Tory , the sexy (some mistake surely!) Ann Widdecombe.
[/B]

Howard is exactly the wrong person they should be putting forward. In every possible way. The last thing the tories need is another bland, bald grey old man. Portillo is their best hope, someone reasonably young with a bit of flair, well known and accepted by the public due to his TV precense.

I wouldnt completely write off the tories....... Whatever happens in the next election, there is no way I will ever vote for Bliar and I think a lot of people think the same. So the tories might just swing it.............

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by JamesM
I feel the problem with the Tories is that they're torn between appealing to the party faithful and appealing to enough people to actually get them back into power. These two constituencies no longer overlap.

That maybe so, but dont forget its only in the last month that they have actually had any policies at all. {A political party, with policies? no?!}

They seem to be about even with labour at the moment but if they refine their policies into something sensible rather than the ludicrous "lets stick all the asylum seekers on an imginery desert island like in the cartoons, and it wont be a tax burden because they will all be able to eat coconuts and fish" rubbish, they may get a lot more votes.

[BillyTK]

I was watching Newsnight on Wednesday night and some guy from the Tory party (dunno who-they all look the same to me ;) ) made the point that Labour won by heading for the centre, and the Tories, if they want to have any chance of competing, need to do the same. Even another St. Thatch of Grantham would be out-of-step with the current mood of the country.

On the other hand, we've already got two centre parties, and judging by the last election—what was it, something like half of the electorate didn't even cast a vote?—there's a heckuva lot of disaffected voters out there. Any party who could capitalise on this would be a formidable force in British politics, and at first glance (though the idea is reprehensible) this is what the British National Party are doing. I'd like to hope that there's some party which could undermine the BNP without employing their dispicable and reactionary rhetoric, but whenever the BNP claim a victory, all the other parties seem to do is mudsling and avoid the issue of how the BNP managed to do that.

[Dragon]

Reginald,
Good summary (except Kinnock came before Smith, didn't he?).
I made the IDS/IBS association too!
Yes, it was ironic to hear Duncan Smith complaining about plotters when he was one of the leading "b@st@rds" under John Majors' leadership.

I agree with you that the Tories have never really come to terms with getting rid of Thatcher. Her legacy was twofold - the myth of strong leadership and a more right-wing, harder and efficient Labour Party. None of the subsequent leaders have been able to cope with either of those issues (Major got away with it for one election because not enough people could see Kinnock as PM).

Michael Howard is intelligent and competent but I don't believe he can win a General Election against Blair because he just doesn't have a wide enough appeal to win back the middle ground - at least we might have something approaching an opposition now.

[Reginald]

The problem is, as I see it...

Your average local Tory party chairman, and club, much as they think they are at the leading edge of political knowledge are simply too far removed from what is generally popular.
The average age of a tory party member is something like 67 (IIRC). Until they realise that anyone under 40 is just going to view their choice as "Another old man" they are destined to be in second, or even third place. Thats a hefty chunk of voters who see (and you can't blame them) the image that the Tory party refuse to shake off. I agree that Portillo would have made a good choice, he's almost the bad guy that people like. He has made a point of at least giving the impression that he is prepared to get his hands dirty. Love him or hate him, Blair has personality and unfortunately (given that it should be about policy) it will be another strong personality that will beat him.

[richardm]

I can't really see Michael Howard being able to do enough to win the next general election, and frankly I can't see who in the Tory party might be able to. Portillo, perhaps, although personally I can't stand the bloke.

But Michael Howard has so much baggage... "that" interview will no doubt be trotted out ad nauseum, there's his Poll Tax connections, plus the fact that the Tory membership won't be too happy that the bloke they elected has been shoved out and replaced by someone the MPs have picked.

Could run and run...

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Reginald
The problem is, as I see it...

Your average local Tory party chairman, and club, much as they think they are at the leading edge of political knowledge are simply too far removed from what is generally popular.
The average age of a tory party member is something like 67 (IIRC). Until they realise that anyone under 40 is just going to view their choice as "Another old man" they are destined to be in second, or even third place. Thats a hefty chunk of voters who see (and you can't blame them) the image that the Tory party refuse to shake off. I agree that Portillo would have made a good choice, he's almost the bad guy that people like. He has made a point of at least giving the impression that he is prepared to get his hands dirty. Love him or hate him, Blair has personality and unfortunately (given that it should be about policy) it will be another strong personality that will beat him.

But IDS is younger than Blair and Hague was only 36 when elected leader. The problem has not been the age of the previous leaders, but the fact they were too far right to appeal to the electorate.

Tony Blair (and John Smith) moved the Labour Party from the left into the centre ground. The Tories response was to put "clear blue water" between the policies by moving further right. Unfortunately, the electorate did not make a similar move. Until the Tories amend their policies to be more in tune with the public, they will keep losing.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Dragon
Reginald,
Good summary (except Kinnock came before Smith, didn't he?).
I made the IDS/IBS association too............

I stand completely corrected. You are, of course, right. Thanks Dragon.

[Giz]

Personally, I'd say that Portillo must be the best choice by miles. However, as Reginald pointed out, whilst the deciding vote is taken by 67 year old re-activists, Portillo is an outside chance.

I'd imagine Labour is praying, in so much as they notice the Tories nowadays for a Howard victory. Or an Ancram victory. Oh God, I could go on and on...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Giz
Personally, I'd say that Portillo must be the best choice by miles. However, as Reginald pointed out, whilst the deciding vote is taken by 67 year old re-activists, Portillo is an outside chance.

I'd imagine Labour is praying, in so much as they notice the Tories nowadays for a Howard victory. Or an Ancram victory. Oh God, I could go on and on...

Does anyone watch Portillo flirting with Dianne Abbot on BBC1's "This Week"? He's like a velociraptor eyeing up his next meal...

[Reginald]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Does anyone watch Portillo flirting with Dianne Abbot on BBC1's "This Week"? He's like a velociraptor eyeing up his next meal...

They should replace her with Ann Widdecombe. That would keep his mind on content.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Reginald


They should replace her with Ann Widdecombe. That would keep his mind on content.

Now she's a "sexy blonde", I think it would make him worse...

[richardm]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Now she's a "sexy blonde", I think it would make him worse...

Wise use of inverted commas, there ;)

[Reginald]

Originally posted by richardm


Wise use of inverted commas, there ;)

Essential use of inverted commas in my opinion!

:D

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Giz
Personally, I'd say that Portillo must be the best choice by miles. However, as Reginald pointed out, whilst the deciding vote is taken by 67 year old re-activists, Portillo is an outside chance.

....
You're right - he's said that he won't stand this time, though.
Probably biding his time until after the 2005 election.

[ceptimus]

I saw an interesting comment on the BBC emails page. This guy said he had a 'charisma scale' for politicians, with Maggie scoring 10 and John Major 0. Everyone else somewhere in between. Then along comes IDS. Of course he is the new "0", but on this revised scale, John Major now scores a 7. :eek:

I expect Portaloo is trying to keep himself clean and fresh, ready for when Howard resigns after losing the next General Election.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet




I think I have already heard the clip of Paxman interviewing Howard about 5 times. For those who don't know, Paxman asked exactly the same question 14 times in successionand Howard tried every time to answer a different question - a classic political interview.

Yeah they were playing that on the radio last night - hilarious stuff. Just a short sample:

"MH: I was entitled to express my views. I was entitled to be consulted.

JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

MH: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis and I did not instruct him. And the truth of it is . . .

JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

MH: And the truth of the matter is Mr Marriott was not suspended. I did not . . .

JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

MH: I did not overrule Derek Lewis.

JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

MH: I took advice on what I could and could not do . . .

JP: Did you threaten to overrule him, Mr Howard?

MH: . . . and I acted scrupulously in accordance with that.

JP: But did you threaten to overrule him?"

And so on , with Paxman asking the same question another nine times without a straight answer.

Michael Howard is surely a man of evil, forever to be associated with removing the right to silence, destroying the right to free assembly, and chaining pregnant women to hospital beds.

Having Howard as Tory leader is a huge boost to labour however, for despite Howards popularity with conservatives, he is completely unelectable and the conservatives will spend at least another 6 years out of power. Hilarious.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by originalgagster


Yeah they were playing that on the radio last night - hilarious stuff.
... snip

Michael Howard is surely a man of evil, forever to be associated with removing the right to silence, destroying the right to free assembly, and chaining pregnant women to hospital beds.

Having Howard as Tory leader is a huge boost to labour however, for despite Howards popularity with conservatives, he is completely unelectable and the conservatives will spend at least another 6 years out of power. Hilarious.

Definitely an interview to treasure - but I've got to take issue with the rest of your post.
The right to silence has not been removed - why do you think it has?
How did he destroy the right to free assembly?
Wasn't Anne Widdecombe more closely associated with the the chaining thing?


Also, I think many Tories have written off the next election anyway and they are backing Howard in the hope that he is effective enough to make some progress and prepare the ground for a younger leader to take them to victory in 2009/2010.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Dragon


Definitely an interview to treasure - but I've got to take issue with the rest of your post.
The right to silence has not been removed - why do you think it has?
How did he destroy the right to free assembly?
Wasn't Anne Widdecombe more closely associated with the the chaining thing?


Also, I think many Tories have written off the next election anyway and they are backing Howard in the hope that he is effective enough to make some progress and prepare the ground for a younger leader to take them to victory in 2009/2010.

The right to silence is no longer absolute as a jury is now entitled to take your silence into consideration in their deliberations (I think) and this change was brought in by Mr Howard.

Not sure about free assembly

Imagine taking measures to stop convicted criminals from attempting to escape. It wasn't all pregnant women that were chained!

[richardm]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Not sure about free assembly


Oh yes. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 was introduced by Howard, and gave the police sweeping powers to restrict protests. At the same time it weakened the right to silence - Dragon, you must have noticed that the words you use to arrest people have changed!

Any meeting in the open air is subject to the Act. Holding it in the open air, even on your own land, means you're having an "Assembly". You must notify the police in advance, and they can break this up if they think there might be "disorder". If more than 20 people spontaneously gather anywhere with a shared purpose, it is also an assembly.

If your assembly has music at it, it is deemed a "Rave", which were a terror to the Blue Rinse brigade at the time ("Young People? Enjoying themselves?").

It also adds lots of extra provisions that might sound reasonable at first glance, but which clearly have scope for plenty of abuse.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


The right to silence is no longer absolute as a jury is now entitled to take your silence into consideration in their deliberations (I think) and this change was brought in by Mr Howard.

Not sure about free assembly

Imagine taking measures to stop convicted criminals from attempting to escape. It wasn't all pregnant women that were chained!

On the right to silence - originalgagster said it had been abolished, which it hasn't.
You're nearly right - but the complete picture is more complicated:-
In general, the jury (or magistrates) can only take a defendant's silence into consideration if he initially refuses to answer questions but then provides answers at court or if he fails to account for his presence in a particular place or any object or mark on his person or clothing - and the last two only apply after he's had the opportunity to take legal advice.

This is only an issue for those people who would never vote for Howard anyway.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Dragon
This is only an issue for those people who would never vote for Howard anyway.

That's most people then!

[Dragon]

Originally posted by richardm


Oh yes. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 was introduced by Howard, and gave the police sweeping powers to restrict protests. At the same time it weakened the right to silence - Dragon, you must have noticed that the words you use to arrest people have changed!

Any meeting in the open air is subject to the Act. Holding it in the open air, even on your own land, means you're having an "Assembly". You must notify the police in advance, and they can break this up if they think there might be "disorder". If more than 20 people spontaneously gather anywhere with a shared purpose, it is also an assembly.

If your assembly has music at it, it is deemed a "Rave", which were a terror to the Blue Rinse brigade at the time ("Young People? Enjoying themselves?").

It also adds lots of extra provisions that might sound reasonable at first glance, but which clearly have scope for plenty of abuse.
Yes, I did notice; I do this for a living! :p

On assemblies - I think you're confusing the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 with the Public Order Act 1986.
Easily done - imagine what its like trying to deal with this stuff for real when you've got Mrs Blue Rinse from the resident's association on one side with Ms Trendy (I know my rights)Raver on the other (nearly had an Insp Grimm moment there).

The law on "raves" applies to a gathering of 100 or more, playing music at night and causing serious distress to the locals. You're right that it applies anywhere and not just to trespassers.

Under the 1986 Act a gathering of 20 or more in a public place is a "public assembly" or, if on land without permission, a "trespassory assembly" (to confuse matters further this last bit was inserted in the 1986 Act by the 1994 Act).

I could go on, especially about the various police powers to deal with these things, but I'm begining to bore myself now - do you have any examples of abuse?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Dragon

do you have any examples of abuse?

Nope, just concerned by the potential for abuse.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


That's most people then!
I guess you're right - my point was that this issue is not going to make any difference. If someone is even thinking of voting for Howard they probably support all this stuff anyway.
Personally I find the man to be one of our more distasteful politicians (and there's some stiff competition!) - but I think he's clever and experienced enough to give Blair a harder time than IDS did.