Michael Portillo elected Tory leader in 2001

[Deleted]

Do the Tories oppose the Iraq War? What happens in 2005?

[jamesg]

I cannot see the Conservatives going against the Iraq War.
They were committed to the 'standing shoulder to shoulder with the US' mantra more than the Labour frontbench. The thinking seemed to be that when they returned to government, they'd have to deal with Bush/the Republicans in the US and so wanted to be a dependable ally.
I don't know Portillo's positioning on the Iraq matter but I suspect he wouldn't have tried to move his MPs in the other direction.

[greenhert]

I doubt Michael Portillo would have won that many more seats than Michael Howard did in 2005.

[The Bishop]

Iraq is certainly an interesting one had Clarke won the leadership in 2001, though. As leader he surely wouldn't have repeated the outright opposition that he chose IRL, but he certainly wouldn't have been an IDS who outdid Blair in his enthusiasm for the whole neocon agenda either.

[sirbenjamin]

Assuming Portillo's personal journey is pretty much the same, he would be an effective leader whose slow-growing popularity means that the 2005 election actually happens in 2006 and results in a very small Labour majority of around 12 seats, possibly with the Tories actually winning the popular vote, given the quirks of the electoral maths at that point.

Portillo stays on, but Blair is ousted fairly soon afterwards. By the time PM Brown goes to the country in 2011, Portillo has handed over to a well-groomed successor (which might still have been Cameron but there would be other options) and there is a near-landslide Tory majority.

No Coalition, but no LD wipeout either.

[jakegb]

Feb 9, 2022 22:55:15 GMT greenhert said:

I doubt Michael Portillo would have won that many more seats than Michael Howard did in 2005.

Difficult one - personally, I felt Portillo had more natural charisma than Howard (and they can be evidenced in his various media appearances). 
But Howard definitely started the road to recovery: he thwarted the Lib Dems decapitation strategy (which marked the end of their late 90s/early 2000s honeymoon) and more importantly, he won the popular vote in England. An important milestone. 

Look back at the 2005 results, Howard was unlucky not to gain more Labour marginals; Labour squeaked through in so many tight contests that year, including several seats in Kent e.g. Medway, Dartford. All of these Kent seats comfortably fell in the Tories column in 2010. 

[greenhert]

Feb 10, 2022 19:13:08 GMT jakegb said:

Feb 9, 2022 22:55:15 GMT greenhert said:

I doubt Michael Portillo would have won that many more seats than Michael Howard did in 2005.

Difficult one - personally, I felt Portillo had more natural charisma than Howard (and they can be evidenced in his various media appearances). 
But Howard definitely started the road to recovery: he thwarted the Lib Dems decapitation strategy (which marked the end of their late 90s/early 2000s honeymoon) and more importantly, he won the popular vote in England. An important milestone. 

Look back at the 2005 results, Howard was unlucky not to gain more Labour marginals; Labour squeaked through in so many tight contests that year, including several seats in Kent e.g. Medway, Dartford. All of these Kent seats comfortably fell in the Tories column in 2010. 

Yes, but the fact that both Labour and the Conservatives were supporting the war in Iraq, which was an unpopular stance across the country, would have limited the Conservative advance no matter which leader they elected.

[timrollpickering]

We don't get so many great railway journeys.

[greatkingrat]

Feb 10, 2022 21:24:14 GMT greenhert said:

Feb 10, 2022 19:13:08 GMT jakegb said:

Difficult one - personally, I felt Portillo had more natural charisma than Howard (and they can be evidenced in his various media appearances). 
But Howard definitely started the road to recovery: he thwarted the Lib Dems decapitation strategy (which marked the end of their late 90s/early 2000s honeymoon) and more importantly, he won the popular vote in England. An important milestone. 

Look back at the 2005 results, Howard was unlucky not to gain more Labour marginals; Labour squeaked through in so many tight contests that year, including several seats in Kent e.g. Medway, Dartford. All of these Kent seats comfortably fell in the Tories column in 2010. 

Yes, but the fact that both Labour and the Conservatives were supporting the war in Iraq, which was an unpopular stance across the country, would have limited the Conservative advance no matter which leader they elected.

I'm not sure the Iraq war was that big an issue amongst swing voters in Con/Lab marginals. I think that most of the people for whom the Iraq war was a major issue would never have considered voting Conservative anyway, even if they had opposed the war.

[sirbenjamin]

Feb 14, 2022 22:00:09 GMT greatkingrat said:

Feb 10, 2022 21:24:14 GMT greenhert said:

Yes, but the fact that both Labour and the Conservatives were supporting the war in Iraq, which was an unpopular stance across the country, would have limited the Conservative advance no matter which leader they elected.

I'm not sure the Iraq war was that big an issue amongst swing voters in Con/Lab marginals. I think that most of the people for whom the Iraq war was a major issue would never have considered voting Conservative anyway, even if they had opposed the war.

It's a strange feature of politics that we set too much store by the views of voters who are never going to change their minds anyway.

You'd think we'd have learned by now.

In fact *maybe* Boris actually has learned this and has been acting accordingly.