mick745
Non-Aligned
Posts: 647 
Member is Online
|
Post by mick745 on Mar 30, 2016 19:35:39 GMT
what would have happened if Michael Portillo had narrowly held Enfield Southgate in 1997? would he have become party leader, and if so, would he have seen a revival in Conservative fortunes?
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 30, 2016 19:46:20 GMT
No one would have made a difference for two terms and he would have come and gone by then. Like Heseltine I think he had more detractors than fans in the PP and party at large. I doubt he would have made it at all. What a loss to Great Railway Journeys and to his many pundit appearances.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 30, 2016 20:59:20 GMT
At the time he was essentially playing a less likeable George Osborne, minus the reputation for economic competence (or any particular competence, really.) I do not think the Conservatives would have benefited by selecting a man widely hated outside the party's core support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 30, 2016 21:09:45 GMT
If Portillo had held on very narrowly (say by 500 votes) then I doubt he would have been able to stand credibly for the leadership - would have looked damaged and vulnerable to electoral defeat. If he had won more comfortably, then he would have been forced to stand by the Thatcherite wing - but might have found that having been the obvious leadership candidate for three or more years, the other candidates had found plenty of good reasons why he should not have won.
Remember how few Conservative Party leadership elections are won by the favourite at the start of the contest.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 30, 2016 21:21:24 GMT
If Portillo had held on very narrowly (say by 500 votes) then I doubt he would have been able to stand credibly for the leadership - would have looked damaged and vulnerable to electoral defeat. If he had won more comfortably, then he would have been forced to stand by the Thatcherite wing - but might have found that having been the obvious leadership candidate for three or more years, the other candidates had found plenty of good reasons why he should not have won. Remember how few Conservative Party leadership elections are won by the favourite at the start of the contest. An infection you chaps seem to have caught? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 30, 2016 21:25:33 GMT
He would have become leader, he wouldn't have liked the experience, he would have done the job which William Hague did from 1997 to 2001.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 30, 2016 22:22:03 GMT
Remember how few Conservative Party leadership elections are won by the favourite at the start of the contest. I'm struggling to think of any contested one (or equivalent) that was won by the initial favourite. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 31, 2016 14:57:53 GMT
If Portillo had held Enfield Southgate, I doubt that he could have won the Tory leadership. He had made a t*t of himself in 1995, when he was very obviously gearing up for a leadership campaign against John Major (installing phone lines at a campaign HQ etc) and then bottled out. Memories of that would have been fresh. The thing is in spite of that he would have surely made it to the final ballot and the MPs that rallied around Hague to stop Clarke would have fallen in behind him. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 31, 2016 16:04:27 GMT
If Portillo had held Enfield Southgate, I doubt that he could have won the Tory leadership. He had made a t*t of himself in 1995, when he was very obviously gearing up for a leadership campaign against John Major (installing phone lines at a campaign HQ etc) and then bottled out. Memories of that would have been fresh. The thing is in spite of that he would have surely made it to the final ballot and the MPs that rallied around Hague to stop Clarke would have fallen in behind him. I agree with you Richard and fear I would have been one of the 'Stop Clarke' party as an MP and would undoubtedly have voted for Hague and have been wrong to do so for the sake of the country (it needs an effective opposition), the party (it needs an effective leader not one I like), Hague (it came too soon, too young, and at a moment when he would be bound to fail and fail quickly) and for Clarke (who wanted it and who would have been perfect for it and maximized what support the Conservatives might have gleaned in the Blair years). All round that period was a disaster. It would not have been better under Portillo and I would not have voted for him. He had a similar claque against him (but for different reasons) to that against Clarke and in a stand-off he might actually have facilitated a Clarke victory from people like me who were prepared to try Hague but not to stomach Portillo. For me Portillo was too stiff and obviously 'on the make' and pleased with himself. He had a mission and that group of Portillistas round him than would have alienated people inside and outside the party. It would have been a harder edged form of Cameroon but more Eurosceptic and a deal further to the right. I think 2001 might have seen Labour win more seats under him, including his own? |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 31, 2016 16:14:30 GMT
Portillo would have been the Conservative equivalent of David Milliband, strong favourite at the start, but unexpectedly pipped to the post by someone relatively unknown.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 31, 2016 16:29:57 GMT
The thing is in spite of that he would have surely made it to the final ballot and the MPs that rallied around Hague to stop Clarke would have fallen in behind him. I agree with you Richard and fear I would have been one of the 'Stop Clarke' party as an MP and would undoubtedly have voted for Hague and have been wrong to do so for the sake of the country (it needs an effective opposition), the party (it needs an effective leader not one I like), Hague (it came too soon, too young, and at a moment when he would be bound to fail and fail quickly) and for Clarke (who wanted it and who would have been perfect for it and maximized what support the Conservatives might have gleaned in the Blair years). All round that period was a disaster. It would not have been better under Portillo and I would not have voted for him. He had a similar claque against him (but for different reasons) to that against Clarke and in a stand-off he might actually have facilitated a Clarke victory from people like me who were prepared to try Hague but not to stomach Portillo. For me Portillo was too stiff and obviously 'on the make' and pleased with himself. He had a mission and that group of Portillistas round him than would have alienated people inside and outside the party. It would have been a harder edged form of Cameroon but more Eurosceptic and a deal further to the right. I think 2001 might have seen Labour win more seats under him, including his own? There are times when I think that the Tories would have been right to make Clarke leader in 1997 but the one big unknown is that if Clarke had been Tory leader would Blair have been bold enough to take Britain into the Euro. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 16:42:06 GMT
Did anyone here ever believe Labour would increase their overall majority in 2001? I think I just used to think to myself "Labour won so big last time, surely they've reached their peak" and just ruled the prospect out that they might win even bigger on that basis. The opinion polls almost all pointed to a majority of at least 250 during that Parliament, usually much more than that. They might just have done what they usually did - overstate Labour's support - but I wonder if turnout had remained as high as it had in 1997 that Labour might have been able to pull off that nightmare scenario and pick up more than just Ynys Mon and South Dorset.
I have occasionally thought that had this forum existed during the first Blair administration, it would have been a very boring time. Even for New Labour supporters, it was a time of exceptional apathy.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 31, 2016 17:52:04 GMT
I remember some pretty intense debates on uk.politics.electoral back then so I'm sure we could have found something to discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 31, 2016 17:56:17 GMT
I think Portillo re evaluated much of where he stood before after losing his seat. Had he retained his seat this may not have happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 31, 2016 19:50:57 GMT
I think Portillo re evaluated much of where he stood before after losing his seat. Had he retained his seat this may not have happened. Yes. He has conducted more than one total re-write of his back story in his head; but don't we all? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 31, 2016 19:58:31 GMT
I agree with you Richard and fear I would have been one of the 'Stop Clarke' party as an MP and would undoubtedly have voted for Hague and have been wrong to do so for the sake of the country (it needs an effective opposition), the party (it needs an effective leader not one I like), Hague (it came too soon, too young, and at a moment when he would be bound to fail and fail quickly) and for Clarke (who wanted it and who would have been perfect for it and maximized what support the Conservatives might have gleaned in the Blair years). All round that period was a disaster. It would not have been better under Portillo and I would not have voted for him. He had a similar claque against him (but for different reasons) to that against Clarke and in a stand-off he might actually have facilitated a Clarke victory from people like me who were prepared to try Hague but not to stomach Portillo. For me Portillo was too stiff and obviously 'on the make' and pleased with himself. He had a mission and that group of Portillistas round him than would have alienated people inside and outside the party. It would have been a harder edged form of Cameroon but more Eurosceptic and a deal further to the right. I think 2001 might have seen Labour win more seats under him, including his own? There are times when I think that the Tories would have been right to make Clarke leader in 1997 but the one big unknown is that if Clarke had been Tory leader would Blair have been bold enough to take Britain into the Euro. That is an awful thought. Better and more effective leader of the opposition by far.........But what if? There was considerable Eurosceptic presence in all parts of the party and there would have had to be an understanding on Europe before he was anointed, and that understanding would have been sure to cover the euro. There is no way he could have turned that or carried the party with him. I can't see why Blair would have been emboldened purely by the presence of Clarke in the role but with the same tone in the country, the Conservative party and on the back benches. But, it is enough to send shivers down the spine. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 31, 2016 20:02:20 GMT
Did anyone here ever believe Labour would increase their overall majority in 2001? I think I just used to think to myself "Labour won so big last time, surely they've reached their peak" and just ruled the prospect out that they might win even bigger on that basis. The opinion polls almost all pointed to a majority of at least 250 during that Parliament, usually much more than that. They might just have done what they usually did - overstate Labour's support - but I wonder if turnout had remained as high as it had in 1997 that Labour might have been able to pull off that nightmare scenario and pick up more than just Ynys Mon and South Dorset. I have occasionally thought that had this forum existed during the first Blair administration, it would have been a very boring time. Even for New Labour supporters, it was a time of exceptional apathy. Yes, I did right up to polling day. I was on a team working for a Conservative in London and the reception on the doorstep in nice middle class areas was apathetic to still mildly hostile. Bad experience. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 31, 2016 20:14:09 GMT
In reality I think Clarke would have always known that he couldn't take the party with him on Europe and certainly by 2001 more and more MPs were willing to accept that, though the membership was another matter. Indeed in 2001 there were Eurosceptics who looked at the prospect of a Clarke/Portillo final two and decided that Clarke was the safer option, feeling that everyone would have their eyes open on the matter whereas Portillo was so willing to dump anything you just couldn't trust you wouldn't wake up one morning to find he had ditched keeping the pound!
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 31, 2016 22:35:19 GMT
Brown wouldn't have allowed entry into the Euro. He was always essentially against and what he said went on economics
|
|
|
|
Post by gladstone on Aug 28, 2016 17:30:32 GMT
Although Portillo would have won the leadership in 1997 what would have become of William Hague? Perhaps he would have become leader later in his career and been more successful as a result
|
|
