Portillo holds Enfield Southgate in 1997

[jluk234]

Would he have held it in 2001 is a more important question? Labour extended their majority in 2001.

Plus, what if he stood as leader? Would he have done better than Hague?

[AdminSTB]

Aug 28, 2016 17:53:44 GMT jluk234 said:

Would he have held it in 2001 is a more important question? Labour extended their majority in 2001.

Plus, what if he stood as leader? Would he have done better than Hague?

I think he would have held it in 2001. Many Labour MPs first elected in 2001 increased their majorities against the trend because they benefitted from a double incumbency effect, ie. the loss of their predecessor's incumbency vote, plus being able to build up an incumbency of their own. Neither of these factors would have been present had Portillo been around to defend Southgate in 2001.
This was the same phenomenon we saw in last year's general election: large numbers of Conservative MPs first elected in 2010 increasing their majorities despite a tiny national overall swing in the other direction. This sort of thing happened in 1987 also.

[greatkingrat]

Or you might have seen the Ed Balls effect, where a narrow loss in 1997 motivates Labour to go all out to try and defeat Portillo in 2001.

[AdminSTB]

It was perhaps surprising that Labour only managed to gain South Dorset from the Conservatives in 2001. There were plenty of indications that there would be several more.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Aug 29, 2016 0:07:56 GMT AdminSTB said:

It was perhaps surprising that Labour only managed to gain South Dorset from the Conservatives in 2001. There were plenty of indications that there would be several more.

There was a list of about ten seats which were targeted - including Boston and Skegness, and I think Chipping Barnet, and Beverley and Holderness.

Labour also gained Ynys Môn from Plaid Cymru, which was slightly more of a surprise although that seat had personality issues.

[The Bishop]

Aug 28, 2016 17:53:44 GMT jluk234 said:

Would he have held it in 2001 is a more important question? Labour extended their majority in 2001.

Plus, what if he stood as leader? Would he have done better than Hague?

Had he been Tory leader in 2001, it is likely the usual "leaders bonus" would have seen him safely home locally.

[sirbenjamin]

May 31, 2016 16:29:57 GMT Richard Allen said:

May 31, 2016 16:04:27 GMT carlton43 said:

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.

It was maddening, absolutely maddening to be a Tory activist at that time.

At every leadership election I'd find myself having an argument with someone about Clarke that basically went along the lines of 'It doesn't matter how pro-Euro he is because he's a million miles away from being Prime Minister. What we need right now is someone who can land a few blows on Blair and hopefully dent their massive majority at the next election before passing the baton to someone else; yes, that can be someone more Eurosceptic'...

So many people simply didn't get it. The Hague appointment was a huge loss for the party on two fronts - wholly ineffective at the time and essentially wasted an entire term of opposition AND we missed out on having Hague as leader a few years down the road when he could/would've been a far more serious contender.

Might Clark have beaten Portillo? Possibly, but there always seemed to be just too many who were dead set against him, whoever he was up against. Which was ridiculous.