BS: Tory leadership

Subject: RE: BS: Tory leadership
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 05:12 PM

McGrath you get no marks for pointing out the obvious, We all know it makes no difference if Blair comes across as a big girls blouse, so what the hell use is the whore of Parliments,just a slobbering shop. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Tory leadership
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 05:19 PM

Bit late tonight to look it up, and check the exact facts but there is a precedent for this. Patrick Gordan-Walker (??) lost his seat in Smethick (??) 1964 he was made a Minister, but there is a time limit on how long a Minister can act wihout a seat in one of the two houses of Parliament, P Gorden-Walker was put up as a candidate for Leyton or Leytonstone in East London, and lost that too.

I think you will find that Alex Douglas-Hume resigned his peerage and was made Prime Minister (In thoses days the queen was "advised" to send for the chosen Party Leader) befoe he was elected for one of the Northern Scotish seats in 1963.

On a more specific point, my personal judgement is that Howard has been chosen to do a holding job untill after the General Election in 2005/6, and thence in the aftermath of that defeat then Portillo, Davis and others will fight it out.

Mind you I could be wrong.

Certainly there is a Labour Vote to be squeezed in the Folkstone Constituency of Howards, and if a deal was done between, say Canterbury, where there is a substantial Liberal vote to be squeezed thhe reesulting election could be "interesting". Expected boundary changes in Kent might confuse the issue

'Catter "anoraks" are invited to Click 'Ere where the facts and figures are stored, and all reasonable answers can be found. Scroll down untill you find the election figures you need.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Tory leadership
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 05:52 PM

And it happened nearly a hundred years ago as well - involving a mate of Lloyd George called Charles Masterman, who'd been made a Minister in the Liberal Government (and had promptly done a shuffle to the right, as they do - voted against a Labour introduced Right to Work Bill that he had previously voted in favour of).

Anyway, he failed to get elected in the 1910 General Election. He was promptly put up in safe seats for by-elections, and after being defeated both times had to resign as Minister.

One factor in his defeat was said to be a song:

God rest you merry gentlemen; let nothing you dismay.
I fear that Mr Masterman will never go away.
He's lost his seat in Parliament, but draws his weekly pay,
Oh, tidings of comfort and joy.

I thought I'd stick that in, in case it comes in useful in future contingencies.

Subject: RE: BS: Tory leadership
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 07:04 PM

Kevin - Noted and filed !!!!!!

Gareth **** BG *****

Subject: RE: BS: Tory leadership
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 07:09 PM

Whether Howard has been put in as a caretaker isn't really the point. He will restore authority to the office of Leader of the Opposition, which has been notably lacking since John Smith died. And that means he would be very hard to shift, even if the Tories wanted to try. He'll lead the Tories for as long as he likes. Portillo may be around long enough to inherit the leadership, but the loathesomely ambitious David Davies has missed the boat, thank God.

I agree entirely about PMQs, McG (Prime Minister's Questions, rather than Parliamentary Question Time, by the way). The reason the Labour Party is taking this regime change seriously - and if you hadn't noticed, it is - is because Howard has the potential to tear Blair apart on other fronts. Most obviously Iraq, where Howard (unlike IDS) will have no problem supporting the war at the same as humiliating Blair over the deceits he used to get us into that war.

Expect the parliamentary Labour Party to become a litle less biddable, too. Many of its members now know they will be out at the nextelection.

Gareth, are you going to enlarge on that point about Buckingham?

Subject: RE: BS: Tory leadership
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Oct 03 - 07:25 PM

Fionn - Yes ! - Read your back posts. What was your position on his selection ? - This you have not answered ?

Oh and by the way you still have not answered my question as to your source of saying that Labou wanted a low turn out at the Brent East bye election. Could it be you can not ??

Incidently I am intreaged (SP) "Most obviously Iraq, where Howard (unlike IDS) will have no problem supporting the war at the same as humiliating Blair over the deceits he used to get us into that war." How ?? Is this yet another of your assertations with out any back up.

Still it will look good on your political and journalistic CV "A supporter of Micheal Howard".

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Tory leadership
From: Fiolar
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 08:24 AM

Isn't Howard the chap who forecast that millions would be out of work if Labour introduced the mininimum wage? Strike one. And how about the time Jeremy Paxman asked him the same question on Newsnight 14 times without getting a straight answer. Strike two. I suppose folk get the leader they deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Tory leadership
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 11:03 AM

If the (official) Tories go down to an even worse defeat next time, Howard will be for the chop the next day, even if he manages to hold on to his own seat.

And the paradoxical thing is that disillusion with Labour could well hit the Tories badly, since it would make it much more likely that former Labour voters will vote tactically, and switch to the Lib Dems in seats where they are the challenger, of which there are quite a lot, including Howard's.

Given the vagaries of the electoral system it would be quite possible for the Tories to get a higher proportion of the vote overall and win fewer seats.

And, no, you don't quite agree with me about Prime Minister's Questions, Fionn. My main contention is that, win or lose, this doesn't really matter a straw when it comes to determining how people vote and whether they vote, out in the real world. It's really primarily about impressing other MPs - which of course is important in its way, as poor old Iain found out this week.

How Howard comes across next time he's up against Jeremy Paxman on TV is probably a lot more significant than how he comes across up when he's up against Tony Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: Tory leadership
From: Gareth
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 01:35 PM

More people watch Paxman, that Prime Ministers Questions. but Kevin, please remember that Fionn has been grovelling to the left for years, trying to crawl into Parliament.

No wonder he is bitter.

Perhaps he should recognise his linitations

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Tory leadership
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 04:03 PM

I believe that there may be compelling grounds for a new law prohibiting the use of the words "Tory", and "leadership" in the same sentence.

As for Mistress Widdicombe, the true measure of her "humanity" is the response she gave to a visually challenged constituent, when asked if the Tory manifesto could not be supplied in braille, or on audio cassette. She replied "I suppose so, but think of the cost involved for so few people". The only good thing about this was that it definitely cost her one vote.

Humanity? I think not!