Micheal Howard has announced that he will stand down as Tory leader as soon as an election procedure for his sucesser can be arranged.

Who do people think that should be. I have to say i can't spot any obvious candidate at the moment.

The bookies favourite is David Davies which personally I think would be a mistake. The party needs a new face - someone young and fresh with charisma who is able to appeal to the voters and not remind them of the past. In the same way Blair came along and transformed Labour to make them electable the Tory party need a similar transformation.

Tony Blair didn't just come along. He was projected into the position via the death of the best prime minister we never had, John Smith.

Norman Tebbit.

The charming face of the Tories.

I think they would do well to go for someone like Liam Fox or David Cameron, but they're both probably too slick to appeal to the party's core membership (the over-70s).

Parties tend to get the leaders they deserve, which leads me to believe the next Tory leader will be John Redwood. *prays*

I have to repeat a post from a former thread. I was a 'white collar' convenor representing ASTMS/APEX/AUEW-TASS. On one of the demos I attended the chant was.......

Maggie Thatcher's got one, Norman Tebbit is one la la la la, la la la la

Hopefully it'll be someone old grey and useless.

I think Liam Fox would be ideal.

Why have the last few tory leaders been a bit strange? Probably because they squabble too much to back someone who would appear personable, and media friendly.

I think that the senior tories have all been a bit too personally ambitious to back someone who could really succeed with the public. Hoping in their heart that the next one wil not last too long and their chance will come.

1) John major - strange gray man with a phantom mustache and mr mcgoo glasses which made his eyes look like wasps in a jar, and a voice like reg prescott from Kenny everett, which everyone liked to take off and noone could take seriously.

2) William Hague - young bald bloke with another strange voice, but good try. Picked because he was Thatcher's favorite little tory boy, who used to stay up all night learning the constituencies and majorities of all the sitting MPs, again something very very strange about that.

3) I.D.S. - bloke with military posh voice, and straight back, but strangely changed his name from George to that of his father. Turned out to be too right wing and unpalatable for most of the public.

4) Michael Howard. even with his now forced friendly persona, I just can't help imagining a funny smell when I hear his voice. Also extremely strange accent. And very old looking for a modern leader.

It will be interesting to see what the rule changes are that Michael Howard wants in place before the Conservative Party moves to elect his successor. In part, this will determine who they choose as their new leader.

If the party membership are to be denied a vote, then I suspect that there may be the opportunity for the parliamentary party to elect a new, fresh face. If the party membership keep their vote, then their ageing membership is likely to elect a right-wing idealogue like John Redwood.

Originally posted by Greenback
I think they would do well to go for someone like Liam Fox or David Cameron, but they're both probably too slick to appeal to the party's core membership (the over-70s).

Parties tend to get the leaders they deserve, which leads me to believe the next Tory leader will be John Redwood. *prays*

I agree that Liam Fox could be a good choice, but I think the core membership would always vote Tory anyway.

Originally posted by BoppinBruce
I have to repeat a post from a former thread. I was a 'white collar' convenor representing ASTMS/APEX/AUEW-TASS. On one of the demos I attended the chant was.......

Maggie Thatcher's got one, Norman Tebbit is one la la la la, la la la la

I remember this chant was used on the picket line outside the Times International printworks at Wapping in 1987, when Rupert Murdoch sacked 6000 printworkers - except they used Murdoch's name instead of Tebbit's. It was sung to the tune of Eye Eye Conga. The printworkers never got their jobs back.

My word my Lord, I didn't think that one as elevated as yourself would know how to Conga. How do the gentry do it and keep their crowns in place. I think we should know in the public interest.

Originally posted by Greenback
Parties tend to get the leaders they deserve, which leads me to believe the next Tory leader will be John Redwood. *prays*

I cant agree with you more on that point Greenback! Tony Blair leader of the labour party, a match made in heaven!

Originally posted by Greenback
I think they would do well to go for someone like Liam Fox or David Cameron, but they're both probably too slick to appeal to the party's core membership (the over-70s).

Parties tend to get the leaders they deserve, which leads me to believe the next Tory leader will be John Redwood. *prays*

It's not a thought I wish to entertain, but I fear (and think) you're right, Greenback, and John Redwood will be the next Tory leader. :o

Thus rendering the Tories un-electable - which is a really bad situation for democracy. As I've said before, I have no time for the Tories, but someone has to reign in unfettered 'New-Labourism' somewhere.

If there had been any sort of decent opposition, Labour would not have had the relatively easy win it had yesterday.

Why do the Tories keep shooting themselves - and democracy - in the foot? None of the last three leaders has had any real hope of winning - nonentities, the lot of them.

If Ken Clarke, for example, had been leader yesterday, I'm sure there would've been more of a fight. Michael Howard has always been far too creepy for wide appeal, and he never shook off the Ann Widdecombe comment about there being 'something of the night' about him.

As it stands, the New Labour government will think it can do anything it likes - and it's right. :(

StarSparkle

Whoever the Tory leader is , he/she should realise that there are countless millions of people in this country who are looking for this :-

1.A country where the streets are safe.
2 A country where we have some control over who comes here and [more important ] who stays here.
3.A country that puts the welfare of its indigeneous citizens before ANYONE else.
4 A country that lets ordinary people get on with their lives , the way they see fit -----and at the same time clamping down REALLY hard on the 5 % who make lives a misery for a lot of people.
5 A country where the victims of any crime had a say in the sentencing of the culprit.
6. A country that set up Labour Camps for violent and anti-social offenders so , they too can discover the delights of violence and humiliation.
If any Tory [or any politician] put the above in their Manifsto , I feel sure they'd "walk" the next election.

Originally posted by tim_rutter
Hopefully it'll be someone old grey and useless.

No, they'd never have John Major back.

Fareast, they would walk the next election on there way to march into Poland

Originally posted by t020
The party needs a new face - someone young and fresh with charisma who is able to appeal to the voters...

Like you, perhaps?

T020 FOR PRIME MINISTER :clap:

Originally posted by Abdul
Like you, perhaps?

T020 FOR PRIME MINISTER :clap:


:hihi: :hihi:

Well, one day perhaps..... :suspect:

Originally posted by t020
:hihi: :hihi:

Well, one day perhaps..... :suspect:

The day YOU become PM, I'm emigrating to Australia! :lol:

When will the Conservatives realise they only have to elect Boris Johnson as leader and they'll win by a landslide!

Does anyone know how he and his dad did?

boris won but his dad didnt im sure he lost but dont quote me on the latter:loopy:

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Why do the Tories keep shooting themselves - and democracy - in the foot? None of the last three leaders has had any real hope of winning - nonentities, the lot of them.

If Ken Clarke, for example, had been leader yesterday, I'm sure there would've been more of a fight. Michael Howard has always been far too creepy for wide appeal, and he never shook off the Ann Widdecombe comment about there being 'something of the night' about him.

StarSparkle

Maybe this is because Conservative leaders are not elected on the way they look but on their ability to do the job.

I’m not saying its wrong, but if someone’s charisma is considered above their political abilities, we are heading in the wrong direction!

Although I do think Ken Clarke would make a very good leader of the Conservatives both for the party (he's not so right wing) and for the electorate.

Originally posted by Fareast
Whoever the Tory leader is , he/she should realise that there are countless millions of people in this country who are looking for this :-

1.A country where the streets are safe.
2 A country where we have some control over who comes here and [more important ] who stays here.
3.A country that puts the welfare of its indigeneous citizens before ANYONE else.
4 A country that lets ordinary people get on with their lives , the way they see fit -----and at the same time clamping down REALLY hard on the 5 % who make lives a misery for a lot of people.
5 A country where the victims of any crime had a say in the sentencing of the culprit.
6. A country that set up Labour Camps for violent and anti-social offenders so , they too can discover the delights of violence and humiliation.
If any Tory [or any politician] put the above in their Manifsto , I feel sure they'd "walk" the next election.

Although I personally oppose all those things, I agree that, if the Tories did try to attract the hang em and flog em xenophobes, they would win an election. Just look at how much immigration gets people's goat. If a serious political party started addressing the issue, many millions would vote for it. It would also fit into the current post september 11th world system we live in.

Oh bloody hell another loony lefty (BoppinBruce) who screams or implies "Racist" when ever someone mentions immigration. When are these people going to open their eyes and see that controlled immigration is nothing to do with asylum.

Controlled Immigration benefits both countries, by earmarking what skills we need and preventing the "Brian Drain" on other countries!

If you mop up all the skilled and educated people from a country all that is left are the people with the biggest gun to take control! Africa is a good example.

I think Winston Churchill would make an excellent choice for the tory leadership. He's won two elections for them and I can't think of one good reason why he couldn't do it again:clap:

Boris Johnson for Leader - wow even I might vote Conservative then!

Yeah , re- Boppin Bruce ,

That's a thing that a lot of people , conveniently , forget:-
If you don't control the number of people who come to this country for one reason or another ----and if you let as many stay who want to stay , the chances are that the 3rd. World Countries will be quickly denuded of their brightest citizens. Is this what The Left want ?
I suppose it would make it a lot easier for the Islington Left to employ a few more Filipino maids , but that's about the only advantage I can think of at the moment.

Originally posted by meer
Although I personally oppose all those things...


So why do you oppose a country where all the streets are safe... are you a mugger?

I think Boris is the only way to go. At least the election campaign would have been a darn sight more entertaining with him in charge, and more importantly he's someone the average bloke in the street can actually get on with. Or indeed has heard of.

Originally posted by serapis
Maybe this is because Conservative leaders are not elected on the way they look but on their ability to do the job.


:confused:

I wasn't particularly commenting on the way they look - although the way they come across to people is obviously going to affect how people think about them. If they come over as intrinsically creepy, eg Michael Howard, then the electorate is going to find it difficult to trust them.

If the Tory leaders have been elected on their supposed ability to do the job..... oh boy, are they in trouble if that's the best of the bunch.....

StarSparkle

Originally posted by serapis
Although I do think Ken Clarke would make a very good leader of the Conservatives both for the party (he's not so right wing) and for the electorate.

Woah, let me get this straight: Ken Clarke would not be a good Conservative leader (!) because he's not so right-wing (!). Here's a clue - if Ken Clarke had have been at the helm this time around, you'd have won a load more seats. No doubt about it.

As long as this kind of muddled thinking exists in the Tory party, they won't win a general election.

Originally posted by miniminch
I think Winston Churchill would make an excellent choice for the tory leadership. He's won two elections for them and I can't think of one good reason why he couldn't do it again:clap:

Noooo, Mini, don't even say this in jest!

Before we know where we are, they'll be bringing Maggie back! :gag: :gag:

StarSparkle :suspect:

Originally posted by Fareast
Whoever the Tory leader is , he/she should realise that there are countless millions of people in this country who are looking for this :-

1.A country where the streets are safe.
2 A country where we have some control over who comes here and [more important ] who stays here.
3.A country that puts the welfare of its indigeneous citizens before ANYONE else.
4 A country that lets ordinary people get on with their lives , the way they see fit -----and at the same time clamping down REALLY hard on the 5 % who make lives a misery for a lot of people.
5 A country where the victims of any crime had a say in the sentencing of the culprit.
6. A country that set up Labour Camps for violent and anti-social offenders so , they too can discover the delights of violence and humiliation.
If any Tory [or any politician] put the above in their Manifsto , I feel sure they'd "walk" the next election.

You advocate apartheid (point 3), mob rule (point 5) and gulags (point 6).

Something tells me that these policies are not vote-winners. Call it a hunch, if you will.

I guess that , "BoppinBruce" was having a little dig at my reference to, "Labour Camps " when he mentioned , "marching into Poland ".
Well , not only did Nazi Germany have Labour Camps but the "Left"had and still has them too ! A Rose is a rose by any other name.
Even in Britain , at least up to 1960 , we had the military , "glasshouses " at Shepton Mallet and Aldershot. Since our home-grown thugs think it's smart to humiliate people and beat people up , don't you think it would help them to see things in a different light if they , too, went through the process they think it's such fun to put others through ?
The , "softer" approach has obviously not had the slightest effect on their behaviour. A few years ago , I visited Auschwitz and Mauthausen , in Austria and in both cases , I thought how ironic it was that millions of perfectly innocent people were tortured and ill-treated in such places and nowadays we treat the real scum of the earth with kid gloves. { "It's....er...our 'uman rights , innit?"].

Originally posted by Fareast
A few years ago , I visited Auschwitz and Mauthausen , in Austria and in both cases , I thought how ironic it was that millions of perfectly innocent people were tortured and ill-treated in such places and nowadays we treat the real scum of the earth with kid gloves. { "It's....er...our 'uman rights , innit?"].

Deliberate bathos?

The jews were "the real scum of the earth" , in Germany during the third reich, so I would say that we may have begun to learn our lessons from it if we treat "the real scum of the earth" (whoever they may be) with 'kid gloves' {"like wormwood scrubs & Brixton F wing (fraggle rock) innit?}

Also - isn't Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland?

As for the next Tory leader - Michael Howard (long may we see the back of him in British Politics) has intimated changes might be afoot in the leader selection process, with more power being put in hands of the parliamentary party, so the rank and file members (average age ~65) don't elect another no hoper or chinless wonder.

Originally posted by Greenback
Woah, let me get this straight: Ken Clarke would not be a good Conservative leader (!) because he's not so right-wing (!). Here's a clue - if Ken Clarke had have been at the helm this time around, you'd have won a load more seats. No doubt about it.

As long as this kind of muddled thinking exists in the Tory party, they won't win a general election.

I didn't say "he wouldn't" I said "he would"! Please Re-read what I wrote.

Originally posted by Greenback
You advocate apartheid (point 3), mob rule (point 5) and gulags (point 6).

Something tells me that these policies are not vote-winners. Call it a hunch, if you will.

Greenback,

Point 3 is quite the opposite to Apartheid.
1. Apartheid - An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.

A mechanism to discriminate against the indigenous population of South Africa in favour of the immigrant whites? Call it a hunch, if you will.

Point 5 is not Mob Rule.
"Mob rule", noun, Control or government by a gang, often of violent criminals; also called ochlocracy. Government by the masses.
I fail to see where letting a victim give their views on the level of punishment the perpetrator should receive equals "Mob Rule".

Point 6, yeah you’re right, that’s a gulag!
Although violent criminals actually doing something other than lounging around, playing table tennis or watching TV, is a good thing in my view!

I don't think Ken Clarke should be the leader. At 64 he's even older than Howard and still reminds people of the past. Also since he is more left wing on most issues than the rest of the party it could cause divisions and feuds. The Conservatives have got to hold the centre-right ground. However they also need to broaden the appeal and sell conservative principles to a bigger share of the electorate. The party is moving in the right direction with many new young, female and ethnic MPs elected but a young, popular and charismatic leader is required.

Originally posted by t020
but a young, popular and charismatic leader is required.

Ahhh too bad - I mean - where are you going to find one of them amongst the line up of sad, demented and generally hated people that the conservative party attracts?

I don't think Liam Fox is 'sad, demented or generally hated'. He would be a reasonable candidate. So would many other young and talented mps, such as Mark Bigley. As I say on the Labour Victory thread, whether anybody likes it or not, the Tories were defeated but not given the drubbing predicted. If anything, they have delivered a short, sharp kick to New Labour's sub-navel region. When Blair goes, the likelihood is that he will take the 'Third Way' [a bizarre mixture of Giddens' 'structuration theory', european-style Social Democracy, and Etzioni's Communitarianism] with him. Most of the Labour Party still, secretly, cling to the old, discredited socialist ideals.

The British are almost instinctively 'conservative'. When they begin to see the economy crumble, immigration spiral ever more out of control, and hear, as they will post-Blair, creaking, old Labour phrases like 'nationalise', they will be ready for a change. They will be in a positon to elect a recovered Tory Party. Mock us if you like, winners have that luxury. However, only the Prince of Fools would take comfort from such a narrow victory. To borrow a phrase, from a very unlikely source, our day will come.

Originally posted by serapis
Point 3 is quite the opposite to Apartheid.
1. Apartheid - An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.

It's also "a policy or practice of separating or segregating groups. The condition of being separated from others; segregation". It means segregation. Or, favouring one ethnic group over another. Didn't really work in the States, did it?

What is the "indigenous" population of Britain anyway? It means very little. Just a bit silly.

Originally posted by serapis
[B]I fail to see where letting a victim give their views on the level of punishment the perpetrator should receive equals "Mob Rule".

Views, yes. Authority over the judiciary is a different kettle of fish though. Totally unworkable and just plain daft when you analyse it.

Originally posted by serapis
Point 6, yeah you’re right, that’s a gulag!
Although violent criminals actually doing something other than lounging around, playing table tennis or watching TV, is a good thing in my view!

Depends on what you think jail is for. Whole other debate...

Setting the record straight ;
I didn't say Auschwitz was in Austria , just that Mauthausen was.
I can't see much connectin between Apartheid and solving the problems of one's own citizens before trying to solve other problems. The people who've lived here for years and contributed to our society's prosperity are made up of all sorts of groups and ethnic backgrounds and many of them are having a struggle in all sorts of different ways.When Blair...et ...al...go on about solving Africa's problems and, de facto, let hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants come here , it is tempting to ask why the government don't put the same energy into , firstly , solving our problems. Apart from anything else , genuine refugees lose out too.
Just because the Nazis used the same phrase to describe Jews as I did to describe thugs , it doesn't mean there's the slightest similarity and I can't understand the point you're trying to make.Surely you can see the difference between locking up men , women and children , purely on racial grounds and locking up thugs who have been found lawfully guilty of
horrendous violence ? I'm not suggesting we should create the type of concentration camps that existed in Nazi Germany. I said that it was ironic that innocent people [not just Jews----gays , left-wingers , liberals , anti-Nazis......etc...]were treated so abominably , whilst we deal with scum with such kid gloves.
I can't see much wrong with victims having SOME say in how to deal with a criminal. After all , they are the ones who suffered directly ;they are the only ones who can say how deeply or otherwise a crime has affected their lives and it seems to me to be utterly sensible to listen to their views and act on them to at least some degree.
I think Greenback's talk of "Mob Rule " Apartheid " and the "Gulag " was just a little bit over the top !

p.s.
Apologies to someone about the Aushwitz mix-up.Yes , the way I wrote it does look a bit ambiguous---the comma got in the wrong place. Though , give me a bit of credit !---unless I was lying outright about the visit , I'd know that Auschwitz wasn't in Austria and even if I were lying , I'd not have had to be listening to any news this year to get the location wrong !
Well Greenback , re---the election----in every survey , I've seen in the past 20years , a majority of people have been against unchecked immigration[and the subsequent cost thereof] , have wanted tougher sentencing and tougher prison regimes for violent and /or anti-social thugs and are concerned about their safety and security in general.
Quite regularly , since Capital punishment was abolished , 80% of people in surveys have wanted its re-introduction for certain types of murder , at least. It's the professional politicians , tucked away safely in their leafy suburbs and guarded who are out of touch with the public on law and order and I think it's one of the reasons a lot of people are nowadays apathetic about voting for anyone---no-one seems to listen !

I agree with Timo and To20, about Conservatives need a charasmatic leader. But tainted as most feel he is, they need Blair to be out of the way as well.
Fox does seem ok but I haven't seen much of him, he does sound impressive on the radio.

The general public is not going to stand for another party being in government for 18 years if another decent one is waiting in the wings.
I can't see Blair struggling on to the end of a full 4/5 years I think he wll last about 2, so if the Conservatives havent got themselves prepared with a good looking [and I don't mean just pretty] leader by six months time they will have missed another chance.

Liam Fox, it seems to me, always has a puzzled look on his face. As if, seconds before and interview starts, he's been told some really bad news.

If Blair passes on the batton to Gordon Brown (and I expect it will happen sooner rather thsan later), I don't think Fox would present too much of a threat.

David Davies seems an affable chap but I'm not sure he's quite 'tough' enough.

I've heard him debating with MPs of other political parties and he seems to stumble (verbally!) quite a bit and hardly appears to lay a glove on them.

Ken Clarke - too old. John Redwood - surely not.

An issue for the Tories is that their membership decides who the leaders will be, I think. And the demographics are a bit one-sided, with the majority in the 60-plus bracket.

Will the MPs want to wrest the decision-making process away from the membership so they can choose a leader they can rally round?

Will they pick one of the old guard or have the courage to make that leap of faith and go for one of the young bloods?

There's a chance that the electorate may have grown weary of Labour after the next four/five years in any case.

The next election may be for them like it was for Labour in 1997.

That is, unless Charlie Kennedy has a trick up his sleve.

So who will lead the Tories now? I have just the candidate - a man with illustrious forebears, and ample experience on the world scene, whose entrepreneurial skills have extended to daring exploits to help topple third-world dictators. Step forward Mark Thatcher, the job is yours! :D

Originally posted by Lickszz
So who will lead the Tories now? I have just the candidate - a man with illustrious forebears, and ample experience on the world scene, whose entrepreneurial skills have extended to daring exploits to help topple third-world dictators. Step forward Mark Thatcher, the job is yours! :D

Small flaw in your thinking, he's not allowed into the USA. Mind you Bush refused to meet Howard so perhaps Mark is the natural successor. :D

Originally posted by timo

The British are almost instinctively 'conservative'. When they begin to see the economy crumble, immigration spiral ever more out of control, and hear, as they will post-Blair, creaking, old Labour phrases like 'nationalise', they will be ready for a change. They will be in a positon to elect a recovered Tory Party. Mock us if you like, winners have that luxury. However, only the Prince of Fools would take comfort from such a narrow victory. To borrow a phrase, from a very unlikely source, our day will come. [/B]

Well this is undoubtably true. Labour are bomb proof at the moment because the economy is going swimmingly, as soon as it takes a downward turn we will all be crying to get the tories back. (well, not me, give it a few years yet, until I've bought a house and become an employer, and whatever else it takes for me to give up my utopian socialist ideals - tee hee)

Although timo I disagree that the blairite regime will go into decline with the departure of blair. I think someone in his mould will take over, and not gordon brown, either. I don't think the 'old' left will be well organised enough to wrestle the remains back from Blair and co.

I think you're a little too confident about the conservative's ability to get their party back on track though. They are in a mess over lots of issues - europe, to name a very important one! It really does depend on who they get as their leader, I suppose. I hope it's david davis, he seems nice.

Originally posted by miniminch
I think Winston Churchill would make an excellent choice for the tory leadership. He's won two elections for them and I can't think of one good reason why he couldn't do it again:clap:

Sorry to correct you but Sir Winston only won one general election in 1951. He lost in 1945 and 1950.

Truely a pity thought that the party doesn't have someone of his stature today or even close to it.

I think the main problem with Ken Clarke is that while he would probably be a good opposition leader he is too left wing to bwe a good Tory PM or even to be elected leader. John Redwood has the opposite problem - he has the right sort of ideas but very little public appeal. If he were leader (and I think he is considering standing) I can't see the Tories winning the next election and may even loose seats and votes. Whoever is leader will be a compromise canditate who may well end up satisfying nobody.

Originally posted by t020
The party is moving in the right direction with many new young, female and ethnic MPs elected but a young, popular and charismatic leader is required.

The trouble is there really isn't anyone to fit the bill.

In my opinion neither Clarke nor Redwood would make good leaders. In their different ways they would both divide the party. Parties tend to get less fractious the longer they are out of power, but even so there remain serious divisions within the party, especially over Europe. I would be really surprised if either were to be selected.

Originally posted by dishwasher

David Davies seems an affable chap but I'm not sure he's quite 'tough' enough.



He was in the SAS. How tough do you want?:hihi:

Originally posted by Rich
The day YOU become PM, I'm emigrating to Australia! :lol:

You could be onto something there...mass emigration in case of t020 becoming PM could reduce the tax base, so the Tories would either increase taxes (unlikely) or cut public services (more likely) to make up the shortfall.

I think I'll choose slimsid2000 for Prime Minister instead.

He'll sort out the bus services once and for all :thumbsup:

John Redwood is the local MP for my home town, and having met him several times he is a very nice chap. He does an excellent job, hence him having been the local MP for 18 years, and seems to have the right idea about many issues.

However I have no idea what he would be like as party leader, to be honest I can't really imagine it and I don't think it will happen. I certainly think it would be nicer to have someone younger for a change.

Redwood would never make an acceptable leader in my view. He has charisma, but as the late Alan Clarke said, it is of a 'most peculiar' kind. The 'Vulcan' image haunts the man, and the public would never warm to him. This is a shame, because he has an excellent knowledge of economic matters, and some good, sound traditionally conservative ideas. He is intellectualy very strong, but never a 'man of the people'. I think that he has more in common with the intellectual fringes of the Tory Party than the grassroots supporters. I refer to the readers of Right Now and Salisbury Review, the ex-Monday Club types who are also members of pressure groups/think tanks like the Conservative Democratic Alliance. That is his real role, as an influential intellectual, but never a frontman.

People keep mentioning the word 'young'. It would be nice, some, like Twiglet, say, 'to have someone young' in charge. It would be interesting to see the consensus view of what 'young' really means in relation to politicians. Liam Fox is 43 [my age]. Is he 'young' or 'too old' for the young conservative -voters [all three of them]?

Originally posted by timo
People keep mentioning the word 'young'. It would be nice, some, like Twiglet, say, 'to have someone young' in charge. It would be interesting to see the consensus view of what 'young' really means in relation to politicians. Liam Fox is 43 [my age]. Is he 'young' or 'too old' for the young conservative -voters [all three of them]?

I'd say 43 was young enough. It's also about appearing young as well as actually being young (for a politician). William Hague and IDS were both the right kind of age but both were bald and proved unpopular (although William Hague is quite popular again now and could one day become a good leader). It's sad that such superficial attributes are so important, but that's the way it is.

Originally posted by t020
(although William Hague is quite popular again now and could one day become a good leader).

I've never seen anyone better at rattling Blair than William Hague.

I never had much faith in Hague as the leader of the opposition, but, yes I do concur. Hague could ridicule Blair at the dispatch box and make him look what he is....a liar.

Originally posted by Twiglet
John Redwood is the local MP for my home town, and having met him several times he is a very nice chap. He does an excellent job, hence him having been the local MP for 18 years, and seems to have the right idea about many issues.

However I have no idea what he would be like as party leader, to be honest I can't really imagine it and I don't think it will happen. I certainly think it would be nicer to have someone younger for a change.

The fiasco when he was filmed 'singing' to the Welsh anthem all those years ago will forever haunt him.

IMHO Michael Portillo - the best leader the Conservatives never had

Cameron is going to win this contest... then for the first time since Thatcher, I'm going to be able to vote Tory again.

Yipee!!

David Cameron reminds me of the fat one form "that Mitchell and Web sound"

At least he doesn't look weird and have a weird voice like the last 5 conservative leaders.


My bet is they will vote in David Davis, because he looks weird and has a weird voice.

I dont vote tory (I know, you're shocked) but I'd rather have David Davis in opposition than Cameron. And if they win I'd rather have Davis as PM.

I think people are just getting a little too giddy about Cameron.

Seen today's Telegraph?

Cameron - 59%
Fox 18%
Davis - 15%

Ken's not in it anymore.

I'd prefer Davis, but evidently he doesn't appeal to the masses.

:)

Originally posted by Deavon
Cameron is going to win this contest... then for the first time since Thatcher, I'm going to be able to vote Tory again.

Yipee!!

A Sheffielder voting Conservative...

:D

All *you* need to down is get the Hallamshire constituency to return Conservative, and *that* will be difficult.

Originally posted by kentboy119
Seen today's Telegraph?

Cameron - 59%
Fox 18%
Davis - 15%

Ken's not in it anymore.

I'd prefer Davis, but evidently he doesn't appeal to the masses.

:)

Davis has tried to make too much of his council estate, single mother upbringing in a hope to gain credibility from these sectors of the electorate.

Ken had my backing, but Cameron is the only other I would support. If the Tory’s elect Fox or Davis, they would be repeating the past and electing an unelectable leader yet again!

Originally posted by Monroe
IMHO Michael Portillo - the best leader the Conservatives never had

here here :clap:

It just goes to show how far the media driven soundbite pinup poster boy mode of politics has come. I have no doubt that davis is better qualified to run the country, its just he can't give a particularly convincing speech (speach?) so everyone wants cameron.

Originally posted by serapis
Davis has tried to make too much of his council estate, single mother upbringing in a hope to gain credibility from these sectors of the electorate.

Ken had my backing, but Cameron is the only other I would support. If the Tory’s elect Fox or Davis, they would be repeating the past and electing an unelectable leader yet again!

I must admit David Davis did lay his 'I was brought up on a council estate' on with a trowel.

Fox is fairly modern, but touches the nerve with his slightly righter-than-right opinions, and therefore 'modern' voting Conservative wouldn't favour him.

Caneron's going to win - but will he win the 2009 GE - we shall see.

Alex - :)

Originally posted by kathythebean
It just goes to show how far the media driven soundbite pinup poster boy mode of politics has come. I have no doubt that davis is better qualified to run the country, its just he can't give a particularly convincing speech (speach?) so everyone wants cameron.

Did you hear Davis' speech? - everyone was falling asleep, and ITN/ITV couldn't keep a straight face when it went back to the reporter after they showed the speech.

Alex - :)

Originally posted by kentboy119
A Sheffielder voting Conservative...

:D


I've always been a tory at heart (that's why I voted Tory Blair last few times). I couldn't stand Major. Hague was uninspiring... then there was ... ? And then the evil Mr Howard. I remember how awful he was as home secretary.

Cameron is the first MP in ages to show all the leader qualities that we need in the tory party and all the potential for modernisation.

Now let's see what he's going to make of our tax burden...

Originally posted by kentboy119
Did you hear Davis' speech? - everyone was falling asleep, and ITN/ITV couldn't keep a straight face when it went back to the reporter after they showed the speech.

Alex - :)

His speech was almost as bad as the way he put it across. We need someone who is comfortable and natural when talking.

Cameron's speech was electric!

Breaking news the 2 tories who will go through to see who the members will elect as the next leader of the party are as follows.

David Cameron 90 votes

David Davis. 57 votes

Is Ken Clark not in it now ?

He would have been the best leader.

No the two who I have mentioned are the only two who are left in the race.
This will now be decided by the members of the tory party.

I don't think I've heard of those two, I certainly couldn't point them out in a crowd.

I will guess that Cameron will probably edge it in the ballott of the party members.
He is young by politics standards but I think he will win the race and then he will have to grow into the job very quickly.
He reminds me of Blair in that he is young and looks the part.

expect his 'druggie' past to haunt him - as the old boys in the Tory party help out Davis...