The real winners of the Lib Dem leadership contest…The Tories
James Forsyth 4:11pm
When Ming Campbell was hurried into retirement by his Lib Dem colleagues, the general consensus was that it was bad news for the Tories. Before Ming’s departure, senior Tories joked that they were members of the preserve Ming society. There was a real worry among Tory supporters that Nick Clegg could emerge as an attractive alternative to David Cameron and eat into their support both winning back Lib Dem switchers and becoming a stopping off point for disillusioned Labour voters.
The good news for the Tories is that even if Clegg does win on Tuesday, he’ll leave the leadership race with little to no momentum. A press that was generally enthusiastic about him has soured on him during his lacklustre campaign. While Vince Cable’s wonderful cameos at PMQs has set the bar high for Clegg who doesn’t seem cut out for the bear-pit atmosphere of the Commons at Wednesday lunchtime. A few poor PMQs performances and Clegg could find himself being written off before you can say single transferable vote.
Another consolation for the Tories is that the Lib Dems still won’t be able to get their most talented team on the field under their new leader. Press reports over the weekend suggested that while Charlie Kennedy was prepared to become more active, he still wasn’t ready to take on a full time job. While Paddy Ashdown is expected to head off to Afghanistan to head up the reconstruction effort. A Lib Dem shadow cabinet with Kennedy at Home, Ashdown at Foreign and Cable as Shadow Chancellor would have been equal of the top three of both the two main parties. Instead, the smallest party will have to make do without two of its top talents.
Clegg or Huhne will be more formidable opponents for the Tories than Campbell. But they’ll be entering in unpromising circumstances and with the Tories at 45% in the polls. In short, the weeks following Ming's departure have gone as well as the Tories could have hoped.
Previous
David Lindsay
December 17th, 2007 5:09pm Report this commentIs this post a joke, or are you really that desperate for a safe seat? David Cameron still wishes to be considered a serious politician despite having been rebuffed by the Lib Dems and the Greens. His "alliance" with them would have become an electoral pact, which would have become a merger. Cameron clearly sees the Eurofanatical, anti-family, pro-crime, pro-drugs Lib Dems, never mind the Green exponents of zero economic growth and general hippiedom, as his natural allies. And he is right. Yet even they have much more sense than to want anything to do with him. Of course, it doesn't stop there. Cameron also wants to include the utterly unrepentant old Stalinists and Trotskyists who make up the Blairite rump within the Labour Party. Should Cameron ever become Prime Minister, then expect key roles for Lords Mandelson, Reid, Byers, Milburn, Clarke and the rest. Indeed, Blair himself might very well make some sort of comeback. After all, Cameron's whole strategy is to go on about how much happier we all were under Blair. Weren't we?
RW
December 17th, 2007 6:40pm Report this commentI do wonder how long Clegg will last. In this festive season many LibDems will be looking forward with relish to the next airing of their treasured traditional Winter show, the Stab-the-Leader-in-the-Back Pantomime. Next showing December 2008, all-new Principal Boy, same old outcome?
Tiberius
December 17th, 2007 8:18pm Report this commentDL: you forgot to mention how Cameron's "Winsconsin" policy fits in with being pro-crime, and how increasing IHT thresholds and tax credits for marriage with being anti-family.
Anan
December 17th, 2007 8:59pm Report this commentGrow up David.
Alex, London
December 18th, 2007 1:07am Report this commentDavid Lindsay ... gibberish (yet again)
David Lindsay
December 18th, 2007 1:11am Report this commentTiberius, what "Wisconsin policy"? Where is it? The tax stuff has disappeared, too. And my point remains that Cameron HIMSELF wanted an alliance with the Lib Dems and the Greens (by whom he has been rebuffed - just how humiliating is that?), and is selling HIMSELF as the Heir to Blair. Why don't you or Anan object? You almost deserve for him to win, just to teach you a lesson.
Fergus Pickering
December 18th, 2007 8:47am Report this commentSurely Cameron wanted no such thing (a alliance I mean). I thought it was just a way of cementing in the public mind that the Lib Dems are just Labour under the skin and will NEVER NEVER NEVER ally with Tories. Therefore a vote for them is a wasted vote. So VOTE TORY or, if you can't bear to do that, DON'T VOTE AT ALL. Isn't that right? Some nerdy person from the Beeb yesterday was saying that Cameron came originally from the Tory Right and very nasty indeed, until his disabled child made him nicer. Well, I know you can't believe a word they say, but is this right? A bit? At all?
David Lindsay
December 18th, 2007 4:01pm Report this commentHow often does Cameron actually vote against the Government, including when the Tories don't even call for a vote at Second or Third Reading despite being in receipt of Short Money as an Opposition? I think that that figure would tell us all a very great deal. As for Cameron's roots being on the right of the party, do you mean economically, or socially? They are very far from the same thing. But Cameron doesn't really do politics as such. He just feels that he has a class duty to govern the lower orders. And you can't get any more Heir to Blair than that.
Caroline
December 20th, 2007 3:59am Report this commentI don't know why no-one has answered your question Fergus, about Mr. Cameron 'coming from the Tory right and very nasty indeed' He drafted the last rejected Tory manifesto, and his disabled child that you mentioned is his oldest son, and he has three children, the last one born about 18 months ago? Work out the dates yourself, and I think you'll have to agree that the first description is the appropriate one, and his behaviour at PMQ's doesn't indicate any change for the 'nicer'
Back to top