|
|
Post by matureleft on Jan 19, 2019 17:59:21 GMT
In my view Howard did a remarkably good job in his short time as Leader. He united largely the Party, promoted new talent such as Cameron and Osborne, massively improved the Party’s campaigning machine under Lynton Crosby and oversaw the Party actually making a decent number of General Election gains. Do not underestimate the importance of morale to a Party that had gone 22 years without making net gains at a General Election. In addition, we should not forget that many commentators in 2003 were seriously suggesting the Conservatives could be relegated to third party status under the dreadful IDS. Without those gains in 2005, a return to Government in 2010 would not have been possible. I'd largely agree with this. He had less than 18 months as leader of the opposition before the 2005 election. IDS, though in my view an interesting and essentially decent man, was utterly hopeless as leader. It is certainly possible to exaggerate the importance of Prime Minister's Questions, but he was terrible whereas Howard was a professional with some sharp lines. Morale in the Tory parliamentary party noticeably improved.
The 2005 Tory campaign was essentially an attempt to reassemble their core vote. Dog whistles were in heavy use! It was a cautious and conservative strategy but probably essential and did yield a substantial (3%+) swing albeit with a significant LibDem contribution in taking Labour votes.
He wasn't the man to take the party further (his huge baggage from the Thatcher period, the "something of the night" characterisation and the Newsnight fiasco were large drags) and he was wise enough to recognise that quickly. Bizarrely he was (and presumably still is) an enthusiastic Liverpool supporter.
|
|
|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Jan 19, 2019 18:29:43 GMT
In my view Howard did a remarkably good job in his short time as Leader. He largely united the Party, promoted new talent such as Cameron and Osborne, massively improved the Party’s campaigning machine under Lynton Crosby and oversaw the Party actually making a decent number of General Election gains. Do not underestimate the importance of morale to a Party that had gone 22 years without making net gains at a General Election. In addition, we should not forget that many commentators in 2003 were seriously suggesting the Conservatives could be relegated to third party status under the dreadful IDS. Without those gains in 2005, a return to Government in 2010 would not have been possible. My recollection at the time was that most party members I knew was that Howard was a positive choice, and was spoken of very highly. He was very visible across constituencies and gave off an air of reassurance that he actually had a command of the organisation compared to IDS. To be honest, really dislike IDS as a politician. Everything about him so 1950s. Truly a man born out of his time who should never have got anywhere near the leadership. |
|
|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Jan 19, 2019 18:37:36 GMT
In my view Howard did a remarkably good job in his short time as Leader. He united largely the Party, promoted new talent such as Cameron and Osborne, massively improved the Party’s campaigning machine under Lynton Crosby and oversaw the Party actually making a decent number of General Election gains. Do not underestimate the importance of morale to a Party that had gone 22 years without making net gains at a General Election. In addition, we should not forget that many commentators in 2003 were seriously suggesting the Conservatives could be relegated to third party status under the dreadful IDS. Without those gains in 2005, a return to Government in 2010 would not have been possible. I'd largely agree with this. He had less than 18 months as leader of the opposition before the 2005 election. IDS, though in my view an interesting and essentially decent man, was utterly hopeless as leader. It is certainly possible to exaggerate the importance of Prime Minister's Questions, but he was terrible whereas Howard was a professional with some sharp lines. Morale in the Tory parliamentary party noticeably improved.
The 2005 Tory campaign was essentially an attempt to reassemble their core vote. Dog whistles were in heavy use! It was a cautious and conservative strategy but probably essential and did yield a substantial (3%+) swing albeit with a significant LibDem contribution in taking Labour votes.
He wasn't the man to take the party further (his huge baggage from the Thatcher period, the "something of the night" characterisation and the Newsnight fiasco were large drags) and he was wise enough to recognise that quickly. Bizarrely he was (and presumably still is) an enthusiastic Liverpool supporter.
His support for Liverpool FC stems from his time as a Parliamentary candidate in the city in the 1960s. It was mentioned quite a bit when he asked Boris to apologise for the Hillsborough comments published in the Spectator. Lots of current and former Tory MPs are Liverpool fans. Nick De Bois and Gavin Barwell for starters. |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Jan 21, 2019 12:03:52 GMT
In my view Howard did a remarkably good job in his short time as Leader. He largely united the Party, promoted new talent such as Cameron and Osborne, massively improved the Party’s campaigning machine under Lynton Crosby and oversaw the Party actually making a decent number of General Election gains. Do not underestimate the importance of morale to a Party that had gone 22 years without making net gains at a General Election. In addition, we should not forget that many commentators in 2003 were seriously suggesting the Conservatives could be relegated to third party status under the dreadful IDS. Without those gains in 2005, a return to Government in 2010 would not have been possible. Which says more about the commentators than anything else. The polls at the time of IDS's ousting showed no prospect whatsoever of that. At worst, perhaps the Lib Dem 'decapitation strategy' would have been more successful under an IDS leadership in 2005. |
|
|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Jan 21, 2019 12:24:40 GMT
In my view Howard did a remarkably good job in his short time as Leader. He largely united the Party, promoted new talent such as Cameron and Osborne, massively improved the Party’s campaigning machine under Lynton Crosby and oversaw the Party actually making a decent number of General Election gains. Do not underestimate the importance of morale to a Party that had gone 22 years without making net gains at a General Election. In addition, we should not forget that many commentators in 2003 were seriously suggesting the Conservatives could be relegated to third party status under the dreadful IDS. Without those gains in 2005, a return to Government in 2010 would not have been possible. Which says more about the commentators than anything else. The polls at the time of IDS's ousting showed no prospect whatsoever of that. At worst, perhaps the Lib Dem 'decapitation strategy' would have been more successful under an IDS leadership in 2005. ICM poll on 21 September 2003 had 35% Labour, 30% Conservative and 28% Lib Dem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 12:47:21 GMT
Had IDS been leader the decapitation strategy may have been more successful. Imagine if Davis and May were beaten in 2005.
|
|
|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Jan 21, 2019 13:48:40 GMT
Had IDS been leader the decapitation strategy may have been more successful. Imagine if Davis and May were beaten in 2005. Sounds like another counterfactual thread in the making |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Jan 21, 2019 18:36:30 GMT
Which says more about the commentators than anything else. The polls at the time of IDS's ousting showed no prospect whatsoever of that. At worst, perhaps the Lib Dem 'decapitation strategy' would have been more successful under an IDS leadership in 2005. ICM poll on 21 September 2003 had 35% Labour, 30% Conservative and 28% Lib Dem. Which was just one poll (conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Brent East by-election) and under FPTP the Conservatives would have still easily been the second party in seats even on those figures. The polls at the time of IDS's ousting in early November showed the Tories in a clear second: ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005 |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,474
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 23, 2019 12:12:38 GMT
Wasn't there a poll in autumn 2003 (not long after Brent East) showing a 3-way tie?
|
|
