 |
| |
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:31
|
|
|
|
 04-09-2005 20:47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
|  |
|
Tory leadership battle (plus highly biased guide to it!)
|
Tired of ads?
|
|
Gimp's highly biased guide to the Tory leadership battle.
The background-
The Conservatives (AKA- The Tories, The Nasty Party, The Hangers and Floggers, The Opposition) are seeking a new leader once more. In bygone years they would have chosen their man by "The Magic Circle"- a decision made behind closed doors by the party grandees. More recently, this was replaced by more open leadership battles with hopefuls bidding for support from MP's, or pledging their support to others.
After the drubbing William Hague received in 2001, with great fanfare the Tories unveiled their new democratic method of choosing a leader. Rather than have MP's decide, it was now up to grassroots Tory Party members to elect a leader- a gesture of empowerment to the members, allowing them to choose the leader representing the values they cherish. This was, of course, a mistake. Ask a group of Tory part members who they want and they'll invariably select the one promising to hang the most single mothers, birch the most queers, and deport the most darkies and Catholics. Appeal to the wider electorate is an afterthought.
The members chose Ian Duncan Smith, the most pro-Thatcherite of the contestants, and he never had the support of Tory MP's. They schemed and undermined him, and eventually forced him out. The next leadership battles was again decided by sidestepping an election entirely- effectively the MP's decided among themselves to present to members with a choice of only one candidate (Michael Howard). It was a return to the Magic Circle.
Now Howard is resigning, after the Tories were defeated for the third time in succession this year. It still hasn't been decided how the selection should be made, but most Tory MP's seem convinced that the party members can't be trusted to make the final decision.
So who are the likely contestants? Here's the guide-
David Davis.
Pro- The early leader, and if it was purely up to the MP's he might win. A long-time hard-line right-winger, he's also likely to be harsh enough to win over the party membership. The party would probably remain united under him.
Con- Hanger and flogger. Although the name is widely known, he's a shadowy presence with little charisma. He may be too right-wing to win over the centre ground, and isn't a great Parliamentary performer either. He may end up a "strong leader" who proudly leads a united Tory party to another defeat due to lack of public support.
Malcolm Rifkind.
Pro- Highly experienced at the highest reaches of government, more so than Davies. Respected by MP's, and by sectors of the party membership. Likely to appeal more to the centre-ground than Davies.
Con- Carries the distinct sad and musty whiff of failure about him, after spending years in the wilderness following the loss of his seat. If he can't even win in his home constituency, how can he win a general election? A weak, boggle-eyed loser destined to drop out and pledge his support to a stronger candidate.
Liam Fox
Pro- Has been rising fast over the past 8 years and is undeniably a rising star, who has steered clear of being too closely associated with too much failure. One of the better-know faces, and comes across as at least partially-human in interviews. Could appeal to the centre ground electorate.
Con- Seen as a bit too flash by sectors of the party membership, and hasn't got the long-term respect built up by others. Plus he's my MP, and I personally think he's scum after his treatment of my local Asylum Seeker processing centre. Could end up in the final two (against Davies) but I suspect he'll side with Davies as a "dream ticket" in return for one of the biggest Cabinet positions or Deputy leader.
David Cameron
Pro- The boy wonder. The bright new thing, representing a clean break from the old losing ways and a bold step into a new Tory future.
Con- Who? The general public have no idea who this kid is, let alone hold an opinion on him. Surely can't be considered a serious candidate- he's probably attempting to make a smart alliance to boost his career for the future.
Kenneth Clarke
Pro- The only Tory candidate I'd conceivably vote for. Pro-Europe and one of the most notable critics of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Witty, well-known, charming and charismatic, nobody doubts that he could win over the centre ground. Ever entertaining in interviews and in debates, he'd be the most colourful Tory leader since Churchill. Yes- he's a horible Tory, but I actually like him.
Con- He could win the centre-ground, but lose the right wing in the process. It could be a repeat of Major, with the Tories winning the election but splitting in the process. Doesn't have widespread support of the Tory party membership (which is why he lost before) and is too pro-Europe to win over the Tory MP's over either. Anyone who isn't a natural Tory voter wants him to win, but ultimately he scares the Tories. Plus, at 65, he's no spring chicken.
So who do you want to see winning?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:31
|
|
errr...i'm sure he'll be raising his public profile in the coming weeks and months, and years if he wins...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Theyre all slimy weasels except Clarke, but hes too old.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
).
Attachment: 
|
|
