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

If the polls are correct then Labour will win a third General Election
If so what will happen to Michael Howard?
Should He remain leader or be dropped ?
If he is who should replace him?

Hello...

All election-related conversations should be kept to the specific page set up for this purpose: (A3772974)

You may find that your post is moved, or possibly deleted by the moderators - don't take it personally!

Though your post it's directly related to the election, I think it might be safer to post this to A3772974, rather than <./>askh2g2</.> at the moment.


Geggs

OK

Nit picking I know, but does this refer to the general election or the forthcoming Conservative party leadership election?

The first post says General Election. Can't really see that there's a nit to pick, there.

Though I do get your point.


Geggs

Just a slow Wednesday

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Ask the h2g2 Community' to 'UK General and Local Elections 2005'.

Unless they win more seats than last time a leadership election would be called for. But who. Until the Conservative party go through the cartharsis of deciding who it trying to represent and what it's policies are they are in danger of withering on the political vine. And until they decide this how can they decide who they want to lead them.

What a track record: Major, Hague, err what's his name oh yes IDS and the old Thatcherite, Michael Howard. Shame the country has moved on since Maggie ruled.

This "tradition" of falling on your sword when you lose an election is a fairly recent development, and I think Howard should resist the temptation to do so. He has had a rejuvenating effect on the Conservative party, and even if he loses the election I believe he should stay on as leader, in order to mount an ever-increasingly effective opposition and alternative to Labour. He may not lead the Conservatives into another election, but he can certainly help prepare them for government.

RF

Well, we now know that on the back of a disasterous election (for heaven's sake, they won LESS seats than Michael Foot's Labour Party) Howard has shuttled off quicker than we can say 'leadership crisis'.

Now the Tories, instead of being ready to go on the offensive immediately are resigning from the shadow cabinet in droves and not only face the unenviable task of electing a new leader (not a lot to chose from) but also of changing (yet again) the way in which that leader is chosen. Cecil Parkinson was openly saying on the box yesterday that he's backing William Hague. Glad to see he's been paying attention since Maggie left office...

Blair meanwhile has the luxury of choosing the time of his own departure.

What a shambles the Tory party are.

Well, I notice that Rifkind has got back in, in the seat that Portillo vacated, so he's a possible leader.

I don't think Willy Hague would be a bad choice actually. I mean, he's had the job before so he knows how difficult it can be, his public speaking skills are still quite decent (better than IDS's ever were), he's a bit older than he was the last time he had the job but still quite young.

He had two major problems that he had last time he was leader. Firstly, the party was basicly ungovernable at the time, and so any leader would have been a failure. Willy Hague probably was their best hope at the time, but any hope was pointless. And secondly, he was too young. Both of those problems are, if not cured, than at least eased by now. The party isn't such a complete mess, and Hague is a bit only, and (hopefully) wiser.


Geggs

...Hague is a bit older, rather.

Blast my traitorous fingers.


Geggs

I was pondering the fact that the Conservatives are growing older and not attracting any young blood and how that the will eventually wither on the vine, until I look at the Republicans and the geriatric nature of American politics. Then I put my head in my hands at the prospect of the same trend happening over here.