h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK, big topic at the moment in the UK is the impending election of a new leader of the Conservative Party.
So who does the h2g2 community think would be the best leader.
And I mean best from a Conservative point of view - not Labour's

My opinion - it doesn't really matter (both the result and my opinion ). I think they shot themselves in the foot getting rid of Portillo. I think both candidates are likely to send the conservatives into yet another period of opposition. I think Ken Clarke whilst being more heavyweight (in all senses of the word!) than Duncan Smith is going to merely highlight and extend the party's public agony over membership of the EU and Euro. Duncan Smith I think will just drag the party further to the right and alienate even more voters - still leaving europe as a severe Achilles heel. They still appear to be torn over this issue - it is deeply important to them but not to the general populace (not as a leading issue at any rate).

With the average age of the Conservative Party membership at around 60ish (maybe even higher) this is surely disastrous and not good for the country. Probably it is good for the Liberal Democrats however. Their core support in another ten years may well dwindle and let the LDs in as the second party leaving an increasingly omnipotent Labour party in control.


So anyway, I'll pass the soapbox on.
Whilst I am a Labour supporter I think it is not good that we have a divided and weak opposition - such a thing will not keep the government sharp and on its toes.

I would prefer to see Ken Clarke as the ledder, because I feel he would be the strongest leader out of the two on offer.
Which isn't to say he is ideal.
The main sticking point, and why people should not support him (at least as the media views it), is because of his pro-europe views.
I can't see that this matters squid: He thinks we should enter the single currency, so what? Both main parties, as far as I am aware have dediced to go to the public by means of a referendum, so the individual viewpoint of ministers, primeministers etc., theoretically counts for no more than your or my view on the subject; one vote in the referendum.
So I can't see a major problem with having Ken Clarke as leader, we need a strong opposition, and he of the two stands the greatest chance of providing it.
in my opinion.

I'm just hoping they re-elect Thatcher so that I can have the enourmous pleasure of voting against her again.
No seriously...erm..Ken Clarke because I'm pro euro and not really bothered if the Tories never get elected again.

Having watched the debate between the two on Newsnight when Clark and Duncan Smith spent about 40 minutes of the 55 minute programme arguing heatedly about Europe, and a good part of the remaining 15 agreeing that they should talk about other issues than Europe, and having heard the outpourings of bile from Thatcher, Major, Tebbit et al, I wonder if anybody can successfully lead the Conservative Party at present.

I'm no Tory, but I agree that it is very unhealthy not to have an effective opposition, and it is very clear that whilst most Tory MPs dislike Labour, many of them absolutely loathe their colleagues.

I would have thought that electorally Clark would be better for the Tories, but so many of them seem to be so obsessive about Europe that I don't see how he could get them to unite behind him.

I think perhaps the Conservative rank and file may go for Duncan Smith, simply because he shares their apparent fear and hatred of all matters European. Whether the British public, egged on by a Europhobic press which is largely owned by American or ex-American citizens would be attracted by that I don't know - I hope not.

Like 2legs, I can't see that it matters if Clark is pro-Europe if we are going to have a referendum on the Euro - and in the near future that will be up to Blair and Brown. But it clearly matters a lot to many Conservatives - look at the trouble Major had with Duncan Smith, amongst others.

I agree that they blew their best hope when they dumped Portillo - before the rank and file were consulted. Still, if it all ends in tears they'll know who to blame - each other.

Good grief Duncan - the pleasure of voting against Thatcher is somewhat outweighed by the unpleasure (new word - use and enjoy) of having her in charge.

Actually Thatcher has grown on me since she was ousted - she siglehandedly does more damgage to the Tory cause than anything Labour could possibly do

Judging by the tenor of posts on this issue (and other political ones) I am led to believe that the majoroity of researchers are not of the Tory persuasion.

It seems to me that whichever of these two men are handed the leadership of the party, is being handed a poison chalice. Since Thatcher (and many Tories would agree with this) Tory leaders have been trying to put right the damage that her government did both to the party and to the country.

It seems to me that there are two Tory parties under the same umbrella at the moment. Clarke's (which as a non-Tory, I find more palatable) and Duncan-Smith's (which stands for who knows what).

PP

I believe that the recently ousted campaign manager for Ian Duncan-Smith in Wales knows exactly what that side of the Tory party stands for.
I agree that the health of the nation depends on a healthy opposition which is why the sooner the Tories self dsestruct and the Lib Dems and independents become the official opposition the better.

I have to agree with the above. A strong opposition, with a chance of unseating the government has to exist, to keep the government of the day on their toes, and reasonably in tune with the public. The tories are in no way doing this job, and I don't see either candidate changing that. Clarke is (to my mind) more electable, as a person, but I doubt the party would change as he wants it to. Hence more arguing and infighting, and no improvement in their electability. So it might well be better if they go for Duncan-Smith, crash off rightwards and disappear from the national stage, letting the Liberals return to the limelight. Probably means we will have to put up with at least one more Labour parliament after this one with no effective opposition however, until the Liberals can assert themselves.
Hey ho said Rolly

has to be KC cos of europe

Read an interesting bit in the (Glasgow) Herald yesterday - an interview with a human rights campaigner (From Uganda originally, can't remember her name). Her view was that it would be better if IDM won the leadership. Eh?

Her reasoning was thus; if Clarke gets in then the Tories will (probably) start moving towards the centre (as this is where they need to be if they want to win elections again). This would mean that the extreme right would not have a mainstream party to rally to. Guess where that support would go?

A rather depressing argument I thought, especially given there is a certain element of truth about it.

Personally, I hope that if Clarke gets in and the Tories move towards the centre, this will push Labour left a bit where they should be. I have a nasty feeling it won't happen though.

Just a thought but why isn`t this election being moderated in the same way as the general election by the Beeb.

Well

(a) In the end we were allowed to talk about the electin here I believe - to a certain extent at least

(b) That rule ended with the election.

I love watching interviews with Tory members on TV - all over 60 and I am sure sometimes the news crews just go to the nearest retirement home!, comments like "Oh I don't want to go into the european union thing" from some retired old dear shows just how out of touch and aging the tory party suporters are.

WRT us talking here, there are no laws against it, unlike UK gov elections which have a legal standing.

In ten years time we will be back to the old two party sytem, one left wing (Lib Dems) one right wing (New Labour) and a third party everyone makes jokes about.

ChawkE

The only way the Tories had any hope of getting back into the fray was by electing an 'un-known' - someone who had never publicly taken sides during the past few year's bickering and therefore hadn't tainted themselves with one half of the party or the other. Even Portaloo (although possibly a better option) is still very tainted.

However, like a load of school kids, they all jumped in a line behind their favourite 'prefect' whilst slagging off the other team. It is their own stupidity that has brought them to this. However, it is the country that will suffer - as previous postings have stated, the Government needs a strong opposition - something that the LibDems can't do as they don't actually 'oppose' anything the Government does.

Heaven help us!! - I'm off to planet Zog....

so the liberals will form the next non-labour government ?

Yes, I believe (and hope) so. If there is one that is.

On the election night party 1997 (somewhere in the bowels of the BBC) I distinctly remember one BBC luvy chanting "One party state" at around 03:00 (it may have been later, an awful lot of licence payings wine had been drunk at that stage )

ChawkE

Hooray! It is Duncan-Smith. As a lefty this makes me happy as it is even longer out in the cold for the tories.

I agree about us needing a credible opposition, three cheers for the Lib Dems - final bastion of left wing policy.

... and he made Bill Cash one of his front benchers

And Michael Howard - doesn't he want to win the next election?

I don't want to get moderated so I'll explain that, I am not (because I am not allowed) making a personal attack against the delightful Mr Howard, but I do believe that his political standing was damaged by his connection to the last Conservative government that was utterly and overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate.