Which brings me to David Davis and the real reason behind his trip to the US this week. On the face of it Davis is on a fact-finding mission to discuss zero tolerance policing and defence. In reality, he's about to attend the most important job interview he'll ever have. The Shadow Home Secretary will this week face an assessment by the Americans as to his suitability to be Prime Minister. He's being cleared for the top job. If all goes well and Davis gets the nod, at some stage later this year David Cameron will get wind of a draft letter calling for a vote of no confidence in his leadership. At that point he will announce that he is to step down to spend more time with his family.
As Richard Littlejohn might say, you really couldn't make it up. But the UK Daily Pundit has. I haven't had such a good laugh since I almost wet myself at a Frankie Howerd live theatre show.
44 comments:
By your protestations we can assume that it's true?
Personally, I would welcome the change. But I really can't see any changeover going as smoothly as that. Call me Dave will not give up as easily as that.
So Iain can you categorigally say that the story is untrue? You say its hilarious but not false. You ridicle it but do not explicitly say it is incorrect.
We are tired of political double speak
Sorry, but did I read the right-hand column on Daily Pundit's site right?
There's a proposed PCC 'regulatory panel for blogs'?
Did I miss something?
I only wish it WAS true. (Not the bit about the Americans, that's nonsense, but about the Con. Party planning to kick Cameron out and go full speed into reverse gear re the whole Cameron project).
Here's my admittedly amateur assessment of what has been going on in the Con. Party:
Michael Howard fought an honourable election campaign in 05. Con votes increased slightly but nowhere near enough to ensure victory. (My reasoning: The natural 'pendulum' of public political opinion had simply not swung far enough away from Lab, at that point in time, but if the Con's had held tight and stood their ground, it would eventually do so, as indeed it is now doing).
However, the advisers and policy-formers did not see it that way. "The Nu-Lab ideology is so firmly entrenched in the national consciousness now, that we have got to move away from traditional conservatism and capture the new public mood, and embrace the electorate's liking for environmentalism, anti-globalisation and mild-mustard socialism", they said. Thus, the Cameron project was borne, and our Dave was the face chosen to represent this new shift in ideology.
What the policy-advisors had failed to foresee was the gradual meltdown of Labour after the 05 election (via the Prescott sleaze, Home Office incompetence, Cash for honours, etc etc). Thus we see a Con lead of some 8 to 10 points at the moment, in the polls.
But this small lead is not so much due to the public embracing Cameronism, but due to total and utter disenchantment and dismay at Labour. In my opinion, Michael Howard, had he remained leader on the same agenda as before, would be on around 45 to 48%, compared to say 24 to 27% for Lab, by now.
I wonder if there are not already certain voices within the Con Party who are regretting the whole Cameron-shift, and who are wondering whether it is now too late to do a complete U-Turn and call the whole thing off and go back to proper conservatism.
Despite the staggering incompetence of New Labour and the public's disenchantment and desire for change, Cameron could barely, if at all, get an overall majority if there was an election tomorrow. The only possible ray of light is that, at least that section of Lib-Dem voters who would use their vote against Lab, now know that they have to vote Con in order to defeat Lab, due to Ming's ineptitude.
In short, I think the conservative party has made a huge mistake by embracing 'Cameronism'. Perhaps the Party is already beginning to realise this, but it may be too late now to change track before the next election.
Nice idea but looks about as likely as Blair andorsing Brown for PM.
Just wish it was true.
So do I. I don't know any members of my family, friends and colleagues who will vote for the Tories if there is an alternative, and I don't mean Labour or the Liberals, if Cameron is still in place at the time of an election. All of these 'former' voters have always voted Tory.
David Davies has as much charisma as Michael Howard and would imo prove just as unsuccessful as a leader.
I disagree-the Member for Monmouth has a great personality!
As does David Davis.
When Cameron takes the Tories into a Lab-Con Coalition like Herbert Samuel did in 1931 - Davis will lead the rump of the Conservative Party on the Opposition benches
Spot on, Iain. Davis is yesterday's man and everyone knows it. Any attempt by 'old toryism' to oust the New Toryism will be doomed. Cameron has to take the credit for transforming his Party into a credible challenge to Blair by adopting New Labour ideology and the old eurosceptic, anti-public services, low taxation advocates have no more chance of turning back the tide than those of us who want to repeal Blairism. We all have to live with the new consensus.
Wee 'eh? Didn't know you were into watersports Iain. Maybe you and Oaten would make a good double act...
Which those at 18DS do. Rather worryingly, it is now being likened to Goebbels' propaganda machine...
Cameron needs to be out. But Davis is far too image conscious.
Tories do need a change, but the leader needs to be honest, black and white, no spin and someone the country can get behind!!
Hague would have been it, if he hadn't changed his mind on the EU.
Piper backing Cameron.Now were in real trouble!
"but the leader needs to be honest, black and white, no spin "
So far we've had Hague and IDS
Do you really want another failure?
Well yes if the true blues are to be believed...
The conversations on this subject remind me of the Arthur Scargill argument - brilliantly told but carp - that the reason Labour lost against Mrs T was that Labour was not left wing enough..
Sometimes you have to go with the flow.
Political purity is great ... but if you are in Opposition for 15 years (and the Conservatives will have been for 12 years before the next G Election), then surely even the dumbest realise they are doing something wrong?
Sorry to hear that you've been dropped out of the loop so quickly Iain. It must be something to do with the company you keep.
MADASAFISH
Doing something wrong.....I'll stick to opposition thanks
When Heath refused to support the US in 1973 re the Yom Kippur war. Would not allow British bases in Cyprus to be used by the US to re-supply Israel. Refused access to GCHQ material by the CIA (in particular intercepts from Dukhelia Cyprus)the US was determined to de-stabalise the Heath government. Many of the problems, including the upsurge in trade union militancy that occured during that period was the result of CIA activity. Do not underestimate the ability of the US to protect its interests or take revenge on those who it sees as a threat to those interests. The Daily Pundit may not be far out.
Tom Tyler said: "Michael Howard, had he remained leader on the same agenda as before, would be on around 45 to 48%, compared to say 24 to 27% for Lab, by now."
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Sheesh....life through the looking-glass, eh, Iain?
Bob Piper:
'those of us who want to repeal Blairism.'
OK who exactly is that? Name them. And what is 'Blairism'? Definition please?
'We all have to live with the new consensus.'
Which is what, precisely?
There is no 'natural pendulum' of opinion.The left controls the press and media and the Conservatives allowed themselves to be de-branded with the brand muddying,non mutually reinforcing use of Conservative and 'Tory' (introduced into news broadcasts,radio first then television,in the run up to the 1997 election) in a concurrent ploy with the mutually reinforcing in brand terms use of the Labour/New 'improved' Labour brand reinforcement ploy.That 'coincidental' influx of leftward leaning journalists into the BBC in the run up to the 1997 election as evidenced in the Wilson report wasn't.
On 6th December 2005 DC became leader by a margin of more than two to one over David Davis.
The 39-year-old beat Mr Davis by 134,446 votes to 64,398 .
And since then the Conservatives have gone from 2nd in the opinion polls to first in 15 months.
I'm no DC fan but even I can see something has changed...bu then you can't teach old Tories..anything it would seem:-))
Well the next poll, post idiot flying tax, might not be terribly pleasing for Tories. Talking about taking your support and pissing it away.
Bob Piper: The first pop record I bought was "I'm a yesterday man", which is where I am musically, and it cost six shillings and eight pence. I agree that DD, politically, has got one foot in the grave. And, if you are supporting Dave, I agree with anonymous @9.02.
And next, there's a deal between the PM and POTUS in which PM becomes the Vice President in return for becoming the 51st State, but when POTUS is assassinated, our PM becomes POTUS as well...
Honestly, some people have too much time on their hands.
Since you killed a defenceless old woman with an axe, jailhouselawyer aka John Hirst, made a cup of coffee as you watched her die, and then joked about it to coppers, and have led the fight for evil sickos like yourself to get the vote, and have said that you don't feel any repentance for what you have done, I think you should avoid using phrases like "one foot in the grave". You put all of your victim in the grave. How the hell you pretend to take part in civilised debate with civilised people is beyond me.
madasafish-(the name speaks volumes)
What's changed is the perception in which Tone and his mates are held.Levy has proved the final straw.Cons should be at least 20% in front-they're NOT!
Did anyone hear the Astor/Hilton squeeze on R4 last evening?
David Davis goes to America, and the leader get sacked? Doesn't it usually happen the other way around where Mr Davis is concerned...?
>anon 10.35am
Do you have any idea how loathed the Conservative Party is by many.. ?
And how many are indifferent?
I'm sorry but it will take more than Labour sleaze to make people LIKE the Conservatives enough to vote for them.
For many people Labour sleaze confirms the Labour Party in power is no different from Conservative sleaze.
The Conservative Party worked hard at becoming unloved... really hard... and was very successful.
It takes time to change attitudes.
Most Conservatives have not learned that lesson.. see the reaction to the Mercer affair.
(which confirms to many the "old" Conservative Party as exemplified by Anne Winterton is alive and well... and deeply unloveable)
empiracal ???
With the dosh you are making, you could afford to buy a dictionary..
Scoff if you will, but the Bilderberg people clear anyone who is going to get within a sniff of the top job of power in US/UK. Which is why I can't see them giving to non 'Skull&Bones' types like Hillary or Barack..
On this point, Davis would make a far better leader than Cameron, but not so sure he can sell out to the needs of the marketing man/public focus groups as pliably.
Iain,
Please tell me there was some irony in the "as Littlejohn might say"
re commenter at 1024:
what has this got to do with the debate?
There's a joke in the Yes, Prime Minster series about who really rules Britain and, like much in that series, was close to the truth.
On the DD as leader rumour, I think if there was another leadership vote DD would win in both the parliamentary party and the activists now.
The great-leader-is-wot-won-it myth is Blair's initially. According to him, he won the 1997 election not because he changed Labour. Now it has been adopted wholesale by the Cameroons. And it is just as untrue.
The true reason Blair won in 1997 was because he wasn't a Tory. Similarly, whoever leads the Tory part in the next few years is likely to win because he isn't New Labour.
This analysis is supported by polllng data from electoral calculus, which show that Cameron's election made no real difference to the party's poll figures, as it had already pulled away from Labour during the leadership campaign. If anything it was the way the whole party conducted the contest which voters found so attractive, rather than the result (i.e. the opposite of the spin from Conservative HQ). That said, Cameron did have a honeymoon period but his poll lead had almost entirely melted away within a few months. What saved Cameron wasn't his proposals for new 'green' taxes, sucking up to Polly Toynbee or cycling but Labour's black Wednesday, which finally convinced a big slug of voters that Labour was incompetent. Nothing Cameron has done since seems to have changed any more minds, however.
Personally, I think the Tories are repeating the same mistake they made with John Major: choosing the least objectionable leader in a moment of weakness who, even if he does win the next election, will do the party more harm than good in government because he isn't really a Tory.
If it is true I shall vote Conservative. If not, not.
Who is Lord Astor?
If Blue Peter can fake the results of a phone-in competition then our society truly is in meltdown and absolutely anything is possible! For what it's worth, I think DC may be rather too free-thinking for those who feel that, behind the scenes, it is they who are really pulling the strings.
If the Americans want a dependable lackey to replace Cameron with, wouldn't they be better of with William Hague?
I'd much rather join up with the US than Europe. Better than that would be to be independently allied with both.
Pardon me, but just who is this interview with? Who would a British politician meet with to obtain such approval? Members of the outgoing Bush Administration? The Senate/House Democrats? The State Department? Wealthy internationalist Republican/Democrat donors? McCain, Rudy, Romney, Hils, Obama, Edwards, et al??? Who can tell who is going to be running the show here in America at your next General Election? I don't know and I don't know anyone who does know. So who would Mr. Davis meet with?
Anon 9:29am, I don't mind you laughing at what I said, after all I'm not involved in politics; my view is simply that of an ordinary "man in the street" as it were, but at least in my 2:22am comment yesterday, I tried to flesh out my point so you could see my reasoning, however flawed it might be. Seriously, I'm interested, why do you think my opinion/reasoning is so wrong? Don't just guffaw at what I said; elaborate. I honestly think that the small Con lead in the polls is more to do with disenchantment with Lab, than with positive endorsement of Mr Cameron. Take a look at the BBC News website's "Have your say" section on Cameron's proposals for increasing flight duty, for example. Where is the ringing endorsement there?
And to Schoolboy-error 9:51am, I say, I am 39, I've seen the electorate swing from Callaghan to Thatcher, from Major to Blair, and now (to a smaller extent) from Blair to Cameron. In my opinion, I think there IS indeed a "natural pendulum" of public opinion towards the main parties. We vote one lot in jubilantly (I was ecstatic when Blair took office in May '97, I admit) and then we gradually see them break their promises and we decide to "give the other lot a chance again". I'm not saying that this is the ONLY, or even the dominant factor in such swings of opinion, but I think it does play a part.
Post a Comment