To all outward appearances, the Conservative Party has gone mad, and many of its most rabid enemies will now be rejoicing at the turmoil now afflicting it.
Just when the Conservatives ought to be uniting, concentrating on the issues, attacking the government, pulling together, speaking with a united voice, racing ahead in the polls, blah blah, they are instead deep into a leadership battle, concerning the future of a man who has yet to lead them into a General Election. What kind of mad bastard loser psychopath idiots are these people?
That’s the text. But I think that this is a case where the subtext is far, far more important – the subtext and the context.
The context first. For the first time since it was elected over six years ago the Labour government is in serious trouble, six years being the usual time it takes, for some reason, for a Labour government to fall to bits. The Iraq war has turned a relatively amicable coalition of semi-normals and lefties into a shouting match, and the manifest failure of the government to sort out “public services” by any means other then chucking money at them has finally become obvious to all. The honeymoon, the benefit of doubt, wait and see – all that’s coming to an end.
At the deeper level of things, Europe is turning from a Labour issue back to being a Conservative issue. Because of the expansion of Europe, the case for serious deregulation in defiance of the Franco-German axis is now seriously puttable. And ask yourself this: which party of the big two feels more comfortable with such pro-free-market rhetoric? This stuff will play well with the Conservatives and only cause yet more havoc within Labour. The times they are a-changin’ and in a profoundly Conservative direction.
And this – and now I’m moving to the subtext bit – is precisely why the Conservatives are now in such turmoil. Suddenly, it matters who their leader is. This is now a job worth having. A year ago, a Conservative leadership contest would have been greeted with jeers and raspberries and nothing else. What sad tossers, quarrelling about a ridiculous thing like that! Who the hell would want that job? But this is not now the mood that surrounds this latest Conservative dogfight. Now, it is universally acknowledged that whichever dog emerges from this particular fight – and it is not inconceivable that the dog in question will be none other than Iain Duncan Smith himself – will be a beast who counts for something, leading a pack which is about to go seriously a-hunting after a severely weakened government.
Wars often start when new territory opens up and the question is: who will possess it? (That was what got the American Civil War started. Would the “new” states be slave states, or free states? If the argument had only been about existing states, it wouldn’t have got nearly so nasty.) In the same way, quarrels about the leadership of more peaceful (I’m talking matters of degree here) often erupt at exactly the moment when the organisation ‘ought’ to be marching forward purposefully, because that’s the moment when it suddenly matters who is in charge. So, instead of an immediate advance, there is instead a short and very violent fight to establish who the top dog actually is. Only then does the hunt begin.
That’s what is happening now in the Conservative Party. Their previous three ‘leadership contests’ were really just debates about which insignificant figurehead to stick at the front of the Conservative ship, which was at first assumed to be in motion of its own accord, and later to be becalmed no matter what the ‘leader’ said or did. John Major? William Hague? IDS? None of these men are without talent, but none were leaders in the sense of being able to make any difference to the course of events. But this next guy they pick is actually going to be a real leader. The Conservatives are now having their most serious leadership fight since Edward Heath was despatched, and replaced by Margaret Thatcher.
The proof of this is that whereas in the election that foisted IDS on them, the Conservative MPs were content to have a waste-of-space figurehead put in place by the mere mass (if you can call it that) membership of the Conservative Party, now the MPs are determined to decide the matter for themselves.
As I write, I’ve just been watching IDS say on the television that the Conservatives mustn’t “plunge into turmoil” and have a leadership contest “that could last months”. But that isn’t going to happen. I believe that it will all be over in days, weeks at the most. This is all part of why IDS is so hopeless, I think. How could he be so obviously and so publicly wrong about something so intimately connected with his own interests? That’s all part of why they want rid of him. The man’s a fool.
IDS’s other problem is that the average Conservative MP doesn’t believe he can hunt Labour with anything like sufficient verbal fluency, let alone savagery. For what it may be worth, neither do I. The IDS speech at the recent Conservative Party Conference was excruciating, I thought, as did many Conservatives. But if IDS succeeds in crushing this rebellion, then it won’t matter that when speaking in public he seems barely literate, any more than it matters that President Bush also has a rather arkward way with the English language. IDS will be the top dog of the Conservatives, and the other dogs will do the barking for him if he cannot. Conservative spin-mongers will explain that IDS’s hopeless way with his lines is all part of why he ought to be Prime Minister. “He is all about substance rather than mere presentation”, blah blah, they’ll say, and all the other dogs will yap in agreement.
Personally I don’t think IDS will win. I think the ‘anyone but him’ team is going to win. Whoever the leader ends up being, he’ll be the most significant leader the Conservatives have had since Thatcher, and could well be the next Prime Minister.
Far from being evidence that the Conservative Party is dead, this fight is evidence that it is at last coming back to life.
I’ve been following the comments on the http://www.backids.com website for the last few days now.
There are a heck of a lot of constituency chairmen, MPs, MEPs, Prospective Parliamentary Candidates, London Assembly members, etc with extremely forceful public declarations of support for IDS, with a heck of a lot of others threatening to “never vote Tory again if he is deposed”, etc.
I think the only way they can survive profitably from this is if the winner continues IDS’ policies virtually unchanged (apart from perhaps a few details), but supplies the missing verbal ability. If only Hague wasn’t damaged goods and a bit older & wiser…
If they can get a replacement that delivers the goods I’d be happy to see IDS back at Defence Secretary, else leave him in the top job.
The other change I’d make is to find 4 or 5 active Tory ladies who are retired senior nurses, take them off their ‘stuffing envelopes’ duties and set them up as a 24×7 nursing service for Mrs. Tebbit, so that Norman can kick ass again as Party Chairman knowing his wife is in good hands.
If they’re going to go hunting they need a rottweiler, not a french poodle.
I know it is trivial, but you only have to look at the man to see just what he is. The picture of him, under the Leadreship battle link, says it all for me. The man doesn’t even know how to dress himself properly, and his colour choices are just atrocious.
And why does the Mrs. always give the impression that she has her hand up his jacket pulling the strings that make his lips move?. Strange!, I know , I know, I’m a trivial sob…
In engineering there is a saying, ‘if it don’t look right, it ain’t right’. – works for me..
A point that puzzles me, how does a man who obviously has no charisma or social talent, ever rise to being Leader of the Party?.
Oh, I see, – I just looked up his bio, seems like another one of those ‘old school tie’ jobs, an ‘ex-Guards, ex- corporate’ type, who feels that he is a ‘naturall born’ Leader, and of course, his cronies egged him on. (If that fool Major can do it, why can’t you?).
Are thes people ‘out-of-touch’, or what!.
Ron, you’re so wrong in both instances.
First off, Big Norm was a rotten party chairman. It was in this role that he lost the confidence of Mrs T and rightly so.
Second off, IDS was a rotten Shadow Defence Secretary (his incompetance over Sierra Leone was absolutely breathtaking) and presided over a period (which arguably continues today) when Labour were actually seen as stronger on Defence than the Tories – and I’m not talking about among the public, I’m talking about in the Defence Community. It’s only recently with overstretch and serious problems with a number of procurement projects that the Tories are arguably gaining ground on Defence and even now that’s more to do with Labour’s mistakes than anything positive they’ve got to offer. I’ve been moderately critical of Bernard Jenkin’s performance in the Defence portfolio (though he’s shackled by the fact that the Treasury team won’t let him commit to any more defence spending), but I wouldn’t want to see IDS back in post at Defence for any money.
Tebbit was Party Chairman for all the Thatcher re-elections. He’s one of the few left who isn’t dead or senile.
IDS was personally welcomed in the White House and Pentagon when Shadow Defence Secretary – getting invited over there BEFORE Labour’s serving Defence Secretary within days of Bush’s election.
Now (until this current plotting) he has raised the Tories from -20% in the polls to level or up to 5% better.
Results count. I rest my case.
IDS need not be viewed as incompetent for people to want rid of him. He could also be viewed as an “opposition focused” leader rather than the now-desired “victory focused” leader.
Ron, you’re just digging a bigger hole for yourself.
1) Your remark as regards Tebbit is simply factually inaccurate. He was made Party Chairman in ’85. In post, his administrative skills were revealed to be woeful and he spent as much of his time briefing journalists over his prospects for taking the party leadership after Mrs T as he did actually running CCO. He was never part of the inner circle from that point and came to be viewed with distrust and as a liability.
2) If that is your definition of a successful Defence Secretary it is pointless my even bothering to respond to you because it’s clear that you are measuring success by a wildly peculiar set of standards. IDS got to visit Washington because when he worked for Jane’s he got in with certain members of the American defence establishment and was chummy with Don Rumsfeld and because at that stage the Bush administration was uncertain as to what their relations with a British Labour government would be. This privileged access was not repeated and he was promptly sidelined as soon as it became apparent that Labour were people the Bush White House were ok doing business with. It’s a bizarre, perverse and nonsensical measure for his success as Shadow Defence Secretary and your citing of it, in combination with the factual inaccuracies regarding your claims about Norman Tebbit means that I am minded not to take your pronouncements on such issues seriously in the future.
Correction – “Tebbit was Party Chairman for Thatcher’s difficult re-election.” (ie the non Michael Foot one).
Amazingly his entry on conservatives.com is completely empty (not even a photo).
(He has held the following posts: Minister of State for Industry; Secretary of State for Employment; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade. He was the Conservative MP for Epping and Chingford from 1970 to 1992. Lord Tebbit was also chairman of the Conservative Party from 1985 to 1987.)
A-ha, Anthony, the ad hominem slipped in shows YOUR mentality more than mine.
I am more than happy to let third party readers of this comment box come to their own conclusions as regards the relative merits of our arguments. No sweat.
Sorry Ron, I think he’s got you here.
So who do you guys think will be the next Tory leader, provided IDS loses?
Personally, I hope it is the most rightwing, pro-US, anti-EU candidate….
I met William Cash once, at a rightwing student conference in Poland, and was extremely impressed. I don’t know if he is running this time, but he would be wonderful imho.
Of course Lord Tebbitt’s other achievement as party chairman, charged with building up the organisation, was to exterminate the Federation of Conservative Students for being embarrassing. It would have been better politics to accept students are inevitably embarrassing and set about harnessing them. It may be one reason the party finds itself a bit shorter of 40-minus activists than its rivals.
(Yes, the hard-core returned, but the hard-core were a handful in both senses and haven’t always acquitted themselves well. A potentially valuable recruiting tool was lost. Party management needs to be ruthlessly pragmatic and focused on strategy.)
It is doubtful the Tories will pick up any seats in Scotland and Wales at the next election, they are seen as the party of England. Even if they did their policies can not be imposed on the socialist Parliaments of the afore-mentioned including Stormont. Policies that are good for England but disliked by MP,s from other parts of the UK can and will be voted against. What is the point?.
If the Tories called for an English Parliament,they will romp in in England. If they don’t, they should shut up about Europe,the Euro and Regional Assemblies, and let Blair have his way.nuff said.
Brian may be right that leader of the Tories is now a job worth having. The real reason IDS is going to get the sack is he is just not good enough. He has not got the star-quality, charisma, or killer instinct the job requires.
Frankly the probable replacement will only be a little better.
Ron, I’ve reread Anthony’s comments a couple of times and I can’t spot the ad hom. Can you point it out for me?
What the Tories currently don’t have, but desperately need, in my view, is a Ronald Reagan-like figure who, while being rightwing, is also able to communicate a broadly optimistic, sunny message. In short, be positive and make folk feel good.
IDS was obviously awful at handling people and although good things happened on his watch – look at the polls, look at some of the policies, – by any rights the Tories should be consistently ahead of Labour, given our state.
That said, I think beating Blair any time soon will require an incredible effort and for the economy to go very badly down the pan. On the latter point, I’d rather that did not happen, since that probably would mean I’d be out of a job.
My money is on Michael Howard, though he is awful on civil libertarian grounds, but arguably much smarter than David Blunkett in that respect.