Conservative leadership election goes to membership in 2016

[swanarcadian]

Supposing Andrea Leadsom had stuck it out, possibly avoiding the "motherhood row" brought about by the Times interview, and seen the leadership election process through till the end.  Could she have beaten May to the leadership and become Prime Minister?

[mondialito]

Apr 2, 2018 11:37:12 GMT swanarcadian said:

Supposing Andrea Leadsom had stuck it out, possibly avoiding the "motherhood row" brought about by the Times interview, and seen the leadership election process through till the end.  Could she have beaten May to the leadership and become Prime Minister?

I think May would still have won, but Leadsom will have done far better than expected, perhaps winning 40%+ of the vote.

[carlton43]

I think she might have won and that the offensive' remark might have gained her more votes than it lost?

[Deleted]

Possibly, I personally wouldn’t have voted for her but I know quite a few who would’ve.

[pragmaticidealist]

Apr 2, 2018 12:02:15 GMT mondialito said:

Apr 2, 2018 11:37:12 GMT swanarcadian said:

Supposing Andrea Leadsom had stuck it out, possibly avoiding the "motherhood row" brought about by the Times interview, and seen the leadership election process through till the end.  Could she have beaten May to the leadership and become Prime Minister?

I think May would still have won, but Leadsom will have done far better than expected, perhaps winning 40%+ of the vote.

Which would likely have meant a better cabinet position for her than the ones she has held. 

[colm]

Would anyone have had any problems with her becoming PM after just 6 years in parliament. I know this point could be knocked back as she is not young(under 45) but would some not feel you have to be in parliament for longer.

[swanarcadian]

Apr 2, 2018 13:30:53 GMT colm said:

Would anyone have had any problems with her becoming PM after just 6 years in parliament. I know this point could be knocked back as she is not young(under 45) but would some not feel you have to be in parliament for longer.

Cameron managed to become Tory leader after 4 years in Parliament and PM after 9.  This sort of thing is becoming more commonplace in politics - and in business also.

[beastofbedfordshire]

I think it's more than likely that Leadsom would win, but I wouldn't be completely certain about it. She was the better candidate.

[rivers10]

I don't believe a Leadsom win could be ruled out, as we all know both main parties have memberships that are far more "extreme" than the party hierarchy, Leadsom's popularity amongst the grassroots would almost certainly surprise many stuck in the Westminster bubble.

Throw in the fact that May has since proven to be a dismal campaigner I think it almost certain the race would only have tightened during the campaign. Whether it all would have been enough? Who knows.

[johnloony]

No way could she have won, even if the "I'm a mother" interview had never happened. She lacked any substantial government experience, and would have been exposed in debating/campaigning as hopeless / vague / having the wrong policies etc. If the decision between May and Leadsom had gone to the vote among Conservative Party members, May would have been toughened up by the experience and would have won easily. It might even have given Mrs May enough experience to make her have the sense not to call an unnecessary and unwanted general election.

Having said that, I have occasionally wondered what it would be like if Leadsom had become PM - at least she wouldn't have called the general election (I presume) but in the end, it all boils down to the fact that she would have been out of her depth and stumbling along. Even though she's a Brexiteer, and even assuming she wouldn't have called a general election, I'm glad she didn't become PM. The ideal situation would have been for Michael Gove to get the 2nd place instead of Leadsom.

[Adam in Stroud]

Apr 4, 2018 6:25:10 GMT johnloony said:

No way could she have won, even if the "I'm a mother" interview had never happened. She lacked any substantial government experience, and would have been exposed in debating/campaigning as hopeless / vague / having the wrong policies etc. If the decision between May and Leadsom had gone to the vote among Conservative Party members, May would have been toughened up by the experience and would have won easily. It might even have given Mrs May enough experience to make her have the sense not to call an unnecessary and unwanted general election.

Having said that, I have occasionally wondered what it would be like if Leadsom had become PM - at least she wouldn't have called the general election (I presume) but in the end, it all boils down to the fact that she would have been out of her depth and stumbling along. Even though she's a Brexiteer, and even assuming she wouldn't have called a general election, I'm glad she didn't become PM. The ideal situation would have been for Michael Gove to get the 2nd place instead of Leadsom.

I'm not so sure.

Everyone blames May for calling the GE but when she was first elected leader there was a lot of speculation that she might, and even some criticism for not taking advantage of the opinion poll leads. The opposition parties invariably attack a PM in those circs as "unelected" so would struggle to oppose a vote under the FTPA (as was the case later.) In fact if May had called a GE earlier I think she might have done better: I always thought the "strong and stable" line (a very good one btw) was inherently undermined by insisting for months that she wouldn't call a GE before doing so out of the blue; it would have been more sustainable if done earlier. 

Of course Leadsom might not have had the big opinion poll leads that May did, but Corbyn was not looking good, of course the LDs were where we were, the Sun/Mail/Telegraph/Express would have been onside (not so sure about the Times or mail On Sunday, probably would have seen her as better than Corbyn though) and Leadsom would expect to hoover up the UKIP vote. I think she might have called and won an election "on the bounce" before anyone had a chance to expose her feebleness.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2018 8:54:13 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Apr 4, 2018 6:25:10 GMT johnloony said:

No way could she have won, even if the "I'm a mother" interview had never happened. She lacked any substantial government experience, and would have been exposed in debating/campaigning as hopeless / vague / having the wrong policies etc. If the decision between May and Leadsom had gone to the vote among Conservative Party members, May would have been toughened up by the experience and would have won easily. It might even have given Mrs May enough experience to make her have the sense not to call an unnecessary and unwanted general election.

Having said that, I have occasionally wondered what it would be like if Leadsom had become PM - at least she wouldn't have called the general election (I presume) but in the end, it all boils down to the fact that she would have been out of her depth and stumbling along. Even though she's a Brexiteer, and even assuming she wouldn't have called a general election, I'm glad she didn't become PM. The ideal situation would have been for Michael Gove to get the 2nd place instead of Leadsom.

I'm not so sure.

Everyone blames May for calling the GE but when she was first elected leader there was a lot of speculation that she might, and even some criticism for not taking advantage of the opinion poll leads. The opposition parties invariably attack a PM in those circs as "unelected" so would struggle to oppose a vote under the FTPA (as was the case later.) In fact if May had called a GE earlier I think she might have done better: I always thought the "strong and stable" line (a very good one btw) was inherently undermined by insisting for months that she wouldn't call a GE before doing so out of the blue; it would have been more sustainable if done earlier. 

Of course Leadsom might not have had the big opinion poll leads that May did, but Corbyn was not looking good, of course the LDs were where we were, the Sun/Mail/Telegraph/Express would have been onside (not so sure about the Times or mail On Sunday, probably would have seen her as better than Corbyn though) and Leadsom would expect to hoover up the UKIP vote. I think she might have called and won an election "on the bounce" before anyone had a chance to expose her feebleness.

I think it was the length of the campaign that mainly did for Theresa May , rather than the timing. The volte-face over calling an early election was simply shrugged off by the voters as the kind of thing that politicians do - it did nothing to hurt her in the early polls. The extraordinary thing about the 2017 election is that all the evidence suggested that Mrs May really was heading for an unprecedented landslide, but she frittered it away due to her abysmal performance.

Terrible though Theresa May was - and is - I'm not certain that Andrea Leadsom would have made a very much better standard-bearer for the Conservatives. I fear that a May-Leadsom leadership campaign - had it gone to the membership - would have been a ghastly spectacle.

[Strontium Dog]

She's a lunatic, of course she could have won.

[The Bishop]

Its an interesting one, why last year's GE campaign was such a lengthy one. A little bird informed me that several in Tory HQ actively wanted it that way, seeing it as a chance to not only totally destroy Corbyn and his project but perhaps cripple the Labour party as a serious political force for a generation if not ever.

That went well.....

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2018 10:43:57 GMT The Bishop said:

Its an interesting one, why last year's GE campaign was such a lengthy one. A little bird informed me that several in Tory HQ actively wanted it that way, seeing it as a chance to not only totally destroy Corbyn and his project but perhaps cripple the Labour party as a serious political force for a generation if not ever.

That went well.....

I haven't heard that, but who knows?

The need to jump through the hoops of the FTPA means that "snap" elections of the old kind are no longer possible, as the timetable is automatically stretched.

[beastofbedfordshire]

Apr 4, 2018 9:50:24 GMT Strontium Dog said:

She's a lunatic, of course she could have won.

Your argument is vague and unconvincing.

[goose]

Theresa May would've faced a bruising campaign for the leadership where the membership would've repudiated her left wing policies and used her support for a third runway at Heathrow and HS2 to batter her with very publicly in televised hustings, she would only win because Andrea Leadsom wasn't credible, it would've been exceedingly close, her flaws as a potential PM would've been exposed during the campaign and several MPs who voted for her in the Parliamentary ballots would publicly withdraw their support, she would face significant rebellions against her through the parliament. No GE would've been called as she knew she didn't have any support in the grassroots to support her agenda.

This would likely lead to a change in the method through which Conservative Party Leaders are elected due to the objective low quality of the candidates the membership were forced to choose from.

[pragmaticidealist]

Apr 4, 2018 6:25:10 GMT johnloony said:

She lacked any substantial government experience, and would have been exposed in debating/campaigning as hopeless / vague / having the wrong policies etc. 

Hm, I think those are reasons why she might have actually stood a chance of winning.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2018 11:24:04 GMT goose said:

Theresa May would've faced a bruising campaign for the leadership where the membership would've repudiated her left wing policies and used her support for a third runway at Heathrow and HS2 to batter her with very publicly in televised hustings, she would only win because Andrea Leadsom wasn't credible, it would've been exceedingly close, her flaws as a potential PM would've been exposed during the campaign and several MPs who voted for her in the Parliamentary ballots would publicly withdraw their support, she would face significant rebellions against her through the parliament. No GE would've been called as she knew she didn't have any support in the grassroots to support her agenda.

This would likely lead to a change in the method through which Conservative Party Leaders are elected due to the objective low quality of the candidates the membership were forced to choose from.

That is actually a fairly credible scenario.

EDIT

The first part, anyway. 

Theresa May would have started off weaker, and thus perhaps have been easier to get rid of later on. Unfortunately, the precedent of the hopeless Iain Duncan Smith is not a very encouraging one - it took two years to get rid of him. The current system for electing a leader has the disadvantage of being such a palaver that there is great reluctance to trigger it. In practice, it's only likely to happen if there is at least one candidate who is obviously better AND can be lived with by the Parliamentary Party AND is acceptable to the membership. Rather a tall order, especially at present.

It's all rather reminiscent of Russia in the early twentieth century -

The Kadet politician, V A. Maklakov, summed up the liberals' dilemma in a widely quoted article in September. He compared Russia to an automobile being driven down a steep and dangerous hill at uncontrollable speed by a mad chauffeur (Nicholas). Among the passengers, there are one's mother (Russia) plus competent drivers, who recognize that they are being driven to inevitable doom. But no one dares grab the steering wheel for fear of causing a fatal accident. The chauffeur knows this and mocks the helplessness and anxiety of the passengers: "You will not dare touch me", he tells them. And, indeed, in these terrible circumstances, Maklakov concluded:

"...you will not dare touch him, for even if you might risk your own life, you are travelling with your mother, and you will not dare endanger your life for fear that she too might be killed. So you will leave the steering wheel in the hands of the chauffeur. Moreover, you will try not to hinder him — you will even help him with advice, warning and assistance. And you will be right, for this is what has to be done".

[Merseymike]

Apr 4, 2018 11:24:04 GMT goose said:

Theresa May would've faced a bruising campaign for the leadership where the membership would've repudiated her left wing policies and used her support for a third runway at Heathrow and HS2 to batter her with very publicly in televised hustings, she would only win because Andrea Leadsom wasn't credible, it would've been exceedingly close, her flaws as a potential PM would've been exposed during the campaign and several MPs who voted for her in the Parliamentary ballots would publicly withdraw their support, she would face significant rebellions against her through the parliament. No GE would've been called as she knew she didn't have any support in the grassroots to support her agenda.

This would likely lead to a change in the method through which Conservative Party Leaders are elected due to the objective low quality of the candidates the membership were forced to choose from.

But isn't there's fear of the membership selecting an utter headbanger (as they see it) if there was no parliamentary filter?

Its the argument used by our centrists and it's not very different all told. Basically comes down to "We know best"