IDS leads the Tories in 2005

[pragmaticidealist]

The general view is that the Tories would have suffered a third landslide loss in 2005 had IDS been allowed to continue as leader. But the polls actually weren't that bad at the time of his ousting and in fact he never plummeted to the polling lows of Major and Hague. Could there have been a surprise with an IDS-led Tory party in 2005, with his lack of charisma actually being an asset? 

[warofdreams]

The polls weren't that bad, but they were still averaging 3-4% behind Labour in mid-term, and earlier in the year, some polls had them more than 10% behind. Hard to see how he could possibly get from there to a victory in 2005, assuming no major scandals for Labour. Perhaps, if the reason he remained in place was that he managed, May-style, to rally enough of the party behind him, he could have managed the type of modest advance which Howard did manage in 2005.

And his lack of charisma had made him a figure of fun by 2003, the "quiet man turning up the volume" - hard to see how that could be turned into an asset, particularly when compared with the pretty successful approach of Kennedy.

[mondialito]

Perhaps there would have been an advance, but not by as much as under Michael Howard. A Labour majority of 100 would still be possible.

[Merseymike]

Hard to say. I think Labour only held on in 2005 because of Michael Howard and people like me voting Labour very reluctantly. IDS and Howard are equally loathed by Labour people.
The question is how many Tories would have voted differently and I think it would have been about the same.

[greenchristian]

Mar 17, 2018 18:05:38 GMT Merseymike said:

Hard to say. I think Labour only held on in 2005 because of Michael Howard and people like me voting Labour very reluctantly. IDS and Howard are equally loathed by Labour people.
The question is how many Tories would have voted differently and I think it would have been about the same.

IDS wasn't a figure of hate on the left until later, though. That came during his stint at Work and Pensions under the Cameron government.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Yeah in 2001-03 he was too incompetent for anyone to actually loathe him.

[swanarcadian]

My guess is that we wouldn't have done quite as well under IDS because he didn't have the same presence and profile.
Howard had more experience, and used to make a much better fist of PMQs, for instance.  IDS suffered right from the start because his election to the leadership was completely overshadowed by 9/11, and he seemed to either be ignored by the press or receive negative coverage whenever attention was paid to him thereon.   
People didn't seem to know who IDS was, including a couple of contestants on Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire who were asked who the Leader of the Opposition was.  His self-styled "Quiet Man" image didn't seem to do him any favours either.   I remember some political (it might have been Nick Robinson) correspondent saying at the beginning of a news report "This is the leader of the Conservative Party, in case you didn't know." 
I didn't take any pleasure from any of this, in fact he was treated pretty disgracefully to be frank.

[greenchristian]

Mar 17, 2018 19:31:52 GMT swanarcadian said:

My guess is that we wouldn't have done quite as well under IDS because he didn't have the same presence and profile.
Howard had more experience, and used to make a much better fist of PMQs, for instance.  IDS suffered right from the start because his election to the leadership was completely overshadowed by 9/11, and he seemed to either be ignored by the press or receive negative coverage whenever attention was paid to him thereon.   
People didn't seem to know who IDS was, including a couple of contestants on Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire who were asked who the Leader of the Opposition.  His self-styled "Quiet Man" image didn't seem to do him any favours either.   I remember some political (it might have been Nick Robinson) correspondent saying at the beginning of a news report "This is the leader of the Conservative Party, in case you didn't know." 
I didn't take any pleasure from any of this, in fact he was treated pretty disgracefully to be frank.

So you don't think he could have changed perceptions of him through the campaign in a similar way to what Corbyn did in 2017?

[pragmaticidealist]

Mar 17, 2018 19:31:52 GMT swanarcadian said:

  
People didn't seem to know who IDS was, including a couple of contestants on Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire who were asked who the Leader of the Opposition was.  

There are generally two main types of quiz show contestants: those who have a decent enough general knowledge to take part, and those who just want to appear on TV/win money. Those contestants (I hope!) were in the latter category. 

[swanarcadian]

Mar 17, 2018 19:47:08 GMT greenchristian said:

Mar 17, 2018 19:31:52 GMT swanarcadian said:

My guess is that we wouldn't have done quite as well under IDS because he didn't have the same presence and profile.
Howard had more experience, and used to make a much better fist of PMQs, for instance.  IDS suffered right from the start because his election to the leadership was completely overshadowed by 9/11, and he seemed to either be ignored by the press or receive negative coverage whenever attention was paid to him thereon.   
People didn't seem to know who IDS was, including a couple of contestants on Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire who were asked who the Leader of the Opposition.  His self-styled "Quiet Man" image didn't seem to do him any favours either.   I remember some political (it might have been Nick Robinson) correspondent saying at the beginning of a news report "This is the leader of the Conservative Party, in case you didn't know." 
I didn't take any pleasure from any of this, in fact he was treated pretty disgracefully to be frank.

So you don't think he could have changed perceptions of him through the campaign in a similar way to what Corbyn did in 2017?

I doubt it.  I think Corbyn's advantage (although it's a short term one that will inevitably backfire in spectacular fashion) is that he's a novelty.  He's the first politician that the young and previously apathetic identify as someone who is basically promising them the earth.  He's someone who no-one dreamed would come anywhere near the Labour leadership in 2015, having been a rebellious backbencher for over three decades.  IDS on the other hand is someone who had some frontbench experience and whose election as leader came as no real surprise.

[Merseymike]

Mar 17, 2018 19:21:36 GMT greenchristian said:

Mar 17, 2018 18:05:38 GMT Merseymike said:

Hard to say. I think Labour only held on in 2005 because of Michael Howard and people like me voting Labour very reluctantly. IDS and Howard are equally loathed by Labour people.
The question is how many Tories would have voted differently and I think it would have been about the same.

IDS wasn't a figure of hate on the left until later, though. That came during his stint at Work and Pensions under the Cameron government.

Oh I dont agree at all - we've never liked him!
Though I take the point about him being not taken very seriously.

[Deleted]

Are there any places where IDS might’ve done better than Howard?

[beastofbedfordshire]

His seat is now quite marginal. I wonder if this would still be the case or would it be even possible for labour to have gained this seat in some sort of revenge.

[swanarcadian]

Mar 27, 2018 17:02:12 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Are there any places where IDS might’ve done better than Howard?

That's a difficult one. Neither of them particularly identify with any part of the country. Howard was born in Swansea and IDS is a Scot, but both represent(ed) southern English seats. And they are relatively close politically.

[johnr]

Labour majority of 90. Lib Dems end with 65-75 seats. Worst Tory result ever with them on 180-190.

[pragmaticidealist]

Mar 29, 2018 19:27:17 GMT johnr said:

Labour majority of 90. Lib Dems end with 65-75 seats. Worst Tory result ever with them on 180-190.

That'd still be a net gain for the Tories in seat terms, although Letwin and Davis could both be in trouble if the Lib Dems are in the 70s in seats. 

[heslingtonian]

Mar 27, 2018 17:52:30 GMT swanarcadian said:

Mar 27, 2018 17:02:12 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Are there any places where IDS might’ve done better than Howard?

That's a difficult one. Neither of them particularly identify with any part of the country. Howard was born in Swansea and IDS is a Scot, but both represent(ed) southern English seats. And they are relatively close politically.

Easier to answer the other way round, I don’t think the Conservatives would have gained the likes of Putney or Reading East with IDS as Leader. Personally think he’d have been around the 165 seat mark. By 2005 the Party was much better organised and younger spokespeople were being promoted such as Cameron and Osborne which helped the Party in some London and South East seats. I don’t think this would have happened under IDS. He had some truly dire frontbenchers such as Bill Cash and Ann Winterton.

[sirbenjamin]

I really don't think IDS would've done a lot worse than Howard in 2005. In the 1990s Howard was absolutely loathed by the left and was given a particularly hard time by the left-wing press compared to his contemporaries. While that had dissipated somewhat by the time he became leader, it was still 'a thing'. Given Blair's unpopularity at the time, I think almost any leader other than Howard would've done better. IDS is obviously one that falls into the 'almost any' territory, but there's probably not a whole lot in it. Much of the disquiet around IDS was from people who would've voted Tory anyway - external dislike of the man came much later.

2005 was a big opportunity squandered. With Clarke or Portillo we probably could've seen the Labour majority down to close to single figures and had a very fun parliament making life as hard for Brown as possible. Especially if the resurgent LDs had come along for the ride.

[timrollpickering]

I think it's now how to realise just what a shot of enthusiasm Howard's leadership brought to the party. There had been despair for years and finally we felt we were moving forwards. Although not all problems were solved overnight, there was a big pulling together with the party now working as a united team for the first time in a decade and that helped push onwards.

Looking back I'm really not convinced a Portillo leadership would have been great for the party - he was so distrusted in his zeal for change. There were diehard Eurosceptics who felt safer with Ken Clarke - they knew where he stood and vice versa so there was little likeliehood of him pushing the party into a pro European line. By contrast they feared waking up one morning to see Portillo on some TV sofa or other announcing that as the latest move in party modernisation we would now be supporting rapid entry into the single currency.

[Richard Allen]

I always had the feeling that IDS would have had a decent general election campaign. I don't think the general public had formed a real opinion of him and his low key style might well have compared favourably to Blair, who the public had certainly soured on at this point. This isn't to say he had any real chance of winning but I think he would have at least matched what Howard did and probably a bit better.