Quote of the Day

“Thatcher’s power over the party didn’t evaporate when she was dumped as leader. In four subsequent leadership elections she nominated the winning candidate”

Michael Portillo

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Quote of the Day

  1. William Hague for one was brilliant and Michael Howard was under-rated. You have to remember that our defeat in 1997 was much deserved and long overdue. We werent presenting a viable alternative. We were banging on about our record rather than focusing on the future (sound farmiliar) Labour presented a moderate alternative, very thatcherite in economic outlook but with a social agenda. Hague could have been Churchill and he still would have lost in 2001. The country wasnt ready for a change back to the tories, the economy was still in boom, the government were popular and their reforms like the minimum wage were impressive. There was no need to change back to the Tories. The difference then wasn’t how ‘bad’ the tory candidates were but the fact the country wasn’t listening to us.

  2. It’s interesting that the only candidate that Margaret Thatcher did not nominate, is the only one who’s any good.

    And you’re telling me that we couldn’t have done any better in 2001 or 2005, say if a centre-ground MP became leader rather than three successive ones from the right?

  3. Dan, Hague was brilliant, Howard was under-rated, as you well know governments rely on the economy. When it is doing well they stand a good chance of being re-elected. Blairs economy was strong and he was personally popular. More than this people hadnt forgiven the tories for the ‘sleaze’ of the early 1990’s so were no where near ready to listen to ANY proposals we had in 2001 or 2005. Yes a center candidate would have lost as decisively as Hague and Howard did. Cameron is lucky. He has come in at a time when the tories are on the way up and Labour is coming crashing down.

    Don’t forget when Labour were doing okay just last year, after all the Cameron reforms, we were 10+ points behind in the polls!! The reason why we are ahead is because the economy has gone down the shitter (pardon my french) and people are fed up with Labour. Cameron has much to be commened for but don’t be dillided by the suggestion that the only reason Cameron is doing well is because he wasn’t ‘hand picked by Thatcher’ because that is total tosh.

  4. The arguments here do hold weight, and the only reason Thatcher may not be so diligent over who is leading the party now might simply be because of the passage of time. After all it has been about 18 years since she left Downing Street. I can’t say exactly how many votes it did cost the party, but the ‘dog whistle’ immigration policies the party was harping on about in the last election didn’t help it, which I assume is not going to be the case in this election. Lets go after the big prize – the economy, and what the party will do to make it better.

  5. “Hague was brilliant” – Not really. His personal ratings were low.

    “Howard under-rated” – Again, not really. He failed to come close to a majority, despite the government’s unpopularity after Iraq. However, part of Howard’s problem was the short length of time he was left after Duncan Smith’s departure (another of Thatcher’s nominations).

    “Cameron is lucky” – For a thrid time, not really. Although politics is to some extent about luck, Cameron has done far better than Hague, Smith or Howard in terms of his own approval rating.

    “But don’t be dilluded by the suggestion that the only reason Cameron is doing well is because he wasn’t ‘hand picked by Thatcher’ because that is total tosh.” – Finally, not really. David Cameron has spent much of his political energy shifting the party away from the damaging after-effects of Thatcherism, and has by in large succeeded where Thatcher’s nominees failed.

  6. Hague was leader at a time when tony blair was HUGELY popular. Howard was leader at a time when the economy was still in boom, Iraq was unpopular yes but nowhere near enough to force them out of office. Similarly Howard actually won 60,000 more votes in England than Labour.

    Dan you are interpreting facts to support your own conclusions. Cameron as Dom rightly suggests has come in at a time when Thatcher is becoming more of a memory. Her impact is less on the national psyce, but her influence on the party remains high. Even Cameron brings her up to force his policy agenda for example his recent boast ‘ i will do to society what thatcher did to the economy’ He had no reason to drag up a political leader from a by gone age but he did so to appease his party which still clings to her loyaly.

    Dave has done well but again you are wrong to suggest that the only reason IDS, Hague and Howard fell was because they were nominated by Thatcher. Such a claim insults your intelligence. Incidently check my conversation with Tom M… I have not gone quiet on the single parent issue.

  7. “Hague was leader at a time when tony blair was HUGELY popular.” – This is irrelevant. Hague’s personal levels of popularity were poor, so were IDS’s, though Howard less so.

    “Similarly Howard actually won 60,000 more votes in England than Labour.” – This is also irrelevant. As you know, it is the seats that matter, and Howard didn’t win anything like enough moderate constituencies.

    “Even Cameron brings her up to force his policy agenda.” – True. But this is irrelevant. Of course Cameron will bring her up. However, he has spent much more time talking about issues in a way that people thought she was incapable of.

    “you are wrong to suggest that the only reason IDS, Hague and Howard fell was because they were nominated by Thatcher.” – I didn’t suggest this. IDS, Hague and Howard were only in part unsuccessful because they were too closely associated with the Right and made much less of an effort to change the party’s image.

    “I have not gone quiet on the single parent issue.” – I was referring to the specific debate we were having. I put forward a counter argument and you failed to respond. In the conversation with Tom you just repeat the same prejudices without evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s