Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who should replace TM as leader of the Tories? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Who should be Conservative leader in 2018/19?
    Theresa May (or Amber Rudd)
    9
    11.84%
    Boris Johnson
    20
    26.32%
    Other (please state)
    47
    61.84%

    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    If demographics were all that mattered then we'd have seen semi-permanent Labour governments since the 70's. Parties and people adapt or die while retaining key aspects. Need i remind you that in 20 years of heavily unfriendly demographic change the Tories increased vote share at every single election albeit gradually to the point that they poll now as well as Thatcher.

    The EU referendum is another fantastic example since the idea that the country will grow more europhile requires there to have been a peak in skeptic support before the referendum. We know this is likely not true.

    Do i think the DUP will hold all their current views in 20 years, probably not. But i do expect them to be no worse off than now. Parties are not as suicidal as people think.
    I think you're missing quite what 'demographics' refers to as regards support for the DUP and Sinn Féin. Put simply the Catholic population of Northern Ireland is growing with respect to the Protestant population. The other policies of the DUP, whilst seemingly being of great interest in Great Britain, seem to be rather less significant in Northern Ireland.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I think you're missing quite what 'demographics' refers to as regards support for the DUP and Sinn Féin. Put simply the Catholic population of Northern Ireland is growing with respect to the Protestant population. The other policies of the DUP, whilst seemingly being of great interest in Great Britain, seem to be rather less significant in Northern Ireland.
    Sure but we are assuming that all Catholics will hold the same view on this issue in 20 years. While it's possible that NI will remain as divided as it is, we will have a generation that has grown up in peace becoming the primary voting block. One would hope they have other voting priorities otherwise what the hell is the point in keeping the agreement.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Sure but we are assuming that all Catholics will hold the same view on this issue in 20 years. While it's possible that NI will remain as divided as it is, we will have a generation that has grown up in peace becoming the primary voting block. One would hope they have other voting priorities otherwise what the hell is the point in keeping the agreement.
    The DUP is effectively a fundamentalist Protestant party however – I don't think that it ever stands a chance of attracting large numbers of Catholic voters. If there is a growth in Catholic unionism (and if you count it as unionism then I expect the new generation on both sides to coalesce to a much greater extent behind devolutionism and a distinct Northern Irish identity provided a new devolved government is formed soonish and Brexit doesn't inflame tensions) then I don't expect it to be expressed via the DUP.

    The bizarre thing though is that as the two sides come together in the new post-GFA devolutionist age that voting habits are increasingly being polarised between the extreme unionists of the DUP and the extreme republicans of Sinn Féin.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Sure but we are assuming that all Catholics will hold the same view on this issue in 20 years. While it's possible that NI will remain as divided as it is, we will have a generation that has grown up in peace becoming the primary voting block. One would hope they have other voting priorities otherwise what the hell is the point in keeping the agreement.
    Northern Ireland is certainly more peaceful and safer than 20 years ago, but completely segregated in most places and its hard to understand unless you've lived there, but the feelings and history are such a strong part of your identity it's hard to reconcile and start living together easily.

    Something like 95% of schools are segregated, and everyone knows people or family members who died in the troubles. Things are moving in the right direction but slowly and in 20 years unionism and republicanism will still be a big issue.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc:))
    Pretty slim pickings isn't it
    Only if we're looking at the cabinet level. Some of the best talents and freshest offerings are to be found on the backbenches.

    David Cameron came from fairly humble origins in the party, having been an MP for only four years by the time he became leader - he was in the shadow cabinet (shadow Education Secretary), but a very recent appointment. Jeremy Corbyn obviously came from no-where. Tony Blair was in the shadow cabinet as shadow Home Secretary for two years before being elected.

    The point is that some effective leaders have come up pretty fast through the ranks. There's no need for the Conservatives to look simply at Boris, Gove, Rudd, Davis and Hammond.

    Governments in power seem to have this bizarre view that they have to have some sort of continuity. Hence, Theresa May. A problem with that logic is that quite often a lot of swing voters don't have the first clue who the Home Secretary or a range of other senior ministers are, and when they do it's usually because of something negative.

    Even the likes of Osborne, who I think would have made a good PM, isn't exactly the sort of person you want to put up before the electorate: not in spite of being a long-serving senior minister, but because of it. His political association with certain policies already closes the mind of large numbers of potential voters.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That's the unknown. They chose May because she was was super safe and they did not want another radical leader. The general election may have caused them to reconsider that though in which case a back bench MP could come through as they gamble. Equally fear could see them go for Rudd as the most like May i suppose.
    I never considered May safe and always considered her rhetoric and actions to put her on the right of the party. That represented to me nothing more than kamikaze Toryism: when Labour had yielded to its left-wing, many Tories - electorally comfortable - were minded to do what they want to do and swing right, away from the formula that actually won parliamentary majorities.

    Her virtues, it seemed, was that she was personally quite polite and inoffensive - and that she avoided being associated with particular sides in big issues like Brexit.

    I suppose that many thought it would be a May/Boris battle - and that was part of the problem too. In the end May just ended up being the best of a bad bunch, but the enthusiasm for her seemed completely disproportionate to her abilities: which makes me think it was her dogwhistles to the right that really bolstered her support.

    In terms of the others, Fox is just terrible, Leadsom is barmy, Crabb was sending naughty text messages to young women and Gove had not only been a divisive minister, but just very publicly knifed someone in the back. It's hardly surprising that without a recovered Boris, there wasn't much opposition.

    I still can't help the feeling that I saw this coming. May sacrificed the gains the Conservatives had made with the young, educated, middle-class in favour of appealing to northerners, the working class and Brexiteers. During the election, I assumed there was some grand strategy - which there might have been, if we had assumed Labour would completely fall apart. Ultimately though, we lost votes in seats we held to gain votes in seats we could never realistically win.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Only if we're looking at the cabinet level. Some of the best talents and freshest offerings are to be found on the backbenches.

    David Cameron came from fairly humble origins in the party, having been an MP for only four years by the time he became leader - he was in the shadow cabinet (shadow Education Secretary), but a very recent appointment. Jeremy Corbyn obviously came from no-where. Tony Blair was in the shadow cabinet as shadow Home Secretary for two years before being elected.

    The point is that some effective leaders have come up pretty fast through the ranks. There's no need for the Conservatives to look simply at Boris, Gove, Rudd, Davis and Hammond.

    Governments in power seem to have this bizarre view that they have to have some sort of continuity. Hence, Theresa May. A problem with that logic is that quite often a lot of swing voters don't have the first clue who the Home Secretary or a range of other senior ministers are, and when they do it's usually because of something negative.

    Even the likes of Osborne, who I think would have made a good PM, isn't exactly the sort of person you want to put up before the electorate: not in spite of being a long-serving senior minister, but because of it. His political association with certain policies already closes the mind of large numbers of potential voters.
    Very good point, I'll admit I was simply picturing the cabinet.
    That said; for all his initial promise and likeability David Cameron has screwed over the Conservatives in a way that will continue to have an impact for God knows how long - at lesst until Brexit is over.
    But yes you're right and I think possibly that's what they need; a new name and some fresh ideas to mix things up.

    (Coming from a non Tory voter anyway)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I never considered May safe and always considered her rhetoric and actions to put her on the right of the party. That represented to me nothing more than kamikaze Toryism: when Labour had yielded to its left-wing, many Tories - electorally comfortable - were minded to do what they want to do and swing right, away from the formula that actually won parliamentary majorities.

    Her virtues, it seemed, was that she was personally quite polite and inoffensive - and that she avoided being associated with particular sides in big issues like Brexit.

    I suppose that many thought it would be a May/Boris battle - and that was part of the problem too. In the end May just ended up being the best of a bad bunch, but the enthusiasm for her seemed completely disproportionate to her abilities: which makes me think it was her dogwhistles to the right that really bolstered her support.

    In terms of the others, Fox is just terrible, Leadsom is barmy, Crabb was sending naughty text messages to young women and Gove had not only been a divisive minister, but just very publicly knifed someone in the back. It's hardly surprising that without a recovered Boris, there wasn't much opposition.

    I still can't help the feeling that I saw this coming. May sacrificed the gains the Conservatives had made with the young, educated, middle-class in favour of appealing to northerners, the working class and Brexiteers. During the election, I assumed there was some grand strategy - which there might have been, if we had assumed Labour would completely fall apart. Ultimately though, we lost votes in seats we held to gain votes in seats we could never realistically win.
    Under Cameron's leadership, the Conservatives had a clear message of 'we're good with the economy' (whether they were or not is a different matter.) It resonated with voters and gave off the impression of the party being run by grown ups. Combined with Cameron's attempts to make the party more socially liberal and change their views on issues like grammar schools, it is clear to see how he was able to build an electoral-wining coalition of voters.

    Bizarrely, during the build up to the EU referendum, much of your party decided to disown Cameron's record. Not just his, but even successful Tory leaders like John Major and high profile former ministers like Hesseltine were spoke of in rather unfriendly terms. Rather than focus on economic competence, much of your party seemed to instead adopt shades of angry nationalism. Your party even managed to isolate businesses, which must take some doing.

    May's initial honeymoon period and success was more a result of circumstance than skill. She took over at a time when UKIP had become irrelevant and Labour were in the midst of a civil war. 'Strong on the economy' became 'Brexit means Brexit'. All your party's hard working getting the young and professional vote, as you say, was undone as you instead focused on getting the UKIP and Labour vote. As you say, you traded votes in London marginals for those in Northern Labour safe seats.

    Most bizarrely of all, much of your party seems to think the answer to this is Jacob Rees Mogg. Quite how they think he is going to win over young professionals and graduates and even the business sector like Cameron did, I don't know. I don't think the young are looking for social conservatism in a leader.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    If demographics were all that mattered then we'd have seen semi-permanent Labour governments since the 70's. Parties and people adapt or die while retaining key aspects. Need i remind you that in 20 years of heavily unfriendly demographic change the Tories increased vote share at every single election albeit gradually to the point that they poll now as well as Thatcher.

    The EU referendum is another fantastic example since the idea that the country will grow more europhile requires there to have been a peak in skeptic support before the referendum. We know this is likely not true.

    Do i think the DUP will hold all their current views in 20 years, probably not. But i do expect them to be no worse off than now. Parties are not as suicidal as people think.
    In NI it very much does as the Protestant population steadily dwindles and support for nationalist parties continues to rise. The assembly elections show us things are already evenly poised.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Jeremy Corbyn... for sure...
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Though notionally under the now-abandoned proposed boundaries Sinn Féin would have won more seats than the DUP. No prizes for guessing what might have finally led to their abandonment...
    Are these the new boundaries that were today updated and are still due to be voted on next year where the Lib Dems and Labour will be just as complicit in anti-democratic practices to protect their own rotten boroughs as the DUP?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Are these the new boundaries that were today updated and are still due to be voted on next year where the Lib Dems and Labour will be just as complicit in anti-democratic practices to protect their own rotten boroughs as the DUP?
    Clearly the reports a few months back that they had been abandoned were premature, though I don't see how these are going to pass the House in any case.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Clearly the reports a few months back that they had been abandoned were premature, though I don't see how these are going to pass the House in any case.
    No, the DUP want to keep their slight advantage, Labour their significant advantage, and the Liberal "Democrats" seem to like holding up re-balancing of boundaries when they aren't getting their own way.

    Really it should just be completely restarted with the registration data from the election in June.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, the DUP want to keep their slight advantage, Labour their significant advantage, and the Liberal "Democrats" seem to like holding up re-balancing of boundaries when they aren't getting their own way.

    Really it should just be completely restarted with the registration data from the election in June.
    Given how a slight redrawing could shift the election outcome from DUP dominance to Sinn Féin dominance with the same votes cast in the same places, I think there's also a certain amount of luck in where the boundary commissions choose to draw the lines.

    Really MPs shouldn't have to vote to ratify boundaries once the commissions have drawn them up.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, the DUP want to keep their slight advantage, Labour their significant advantage, and the Liberal "Democrats" seem to like holding up re-balancing of boundaries when they aren't getting their own way.

    Really it should just be completely restarted with the registration data from the election in June.
    That significant labour advantage? The Tories for the second election in a row have had a better votes to seats ratio than labour yet you continually complain about how the boundaries favour labour...

    How does a system which allows the Tories to have a better votes to seats ratio than labour, favour labour?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Me. Vote me everyone
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    That significant labour advantage? The Tories for the second election in a row have had a better votes to seats ratio than labour yet you continually complain about how the boundaries favour labour...

    How does a system which allows the Tories to have a better votes to seats ratio than labour, favour labour?
    Because Labour constituencies are significantly smaller and only getting smaller as deurbanisation continues, the average Labour constituency has on average 4000 fewer registered voters. Why is it that you say only in the last two, might it be because in 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2010 Labour had the better ratio (albeit only just in 2010)? Here's a funny thought: for the most part the winner of an election will have the better vote:seat ratio due to the nature of FPTP, but on that basis should we have the boundaries rejigged every election so at the very least both parties have the same ratio going in?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Because Labour constituencies are significantly smaller and only getting smaller as deurbanisation continues, the average Labour constituency has on average 4000 fewer registered voters. Why is it that you say only in the last two, might it be because in 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2010 Labour had the better ratio (albeit only just in 2010)? Here's a funny thought: for the most part the winner of an election will have the better vote:seat ratio due to the nature of FPTP, but on that basis should we have the boundaries rejigged every election so at the very least both parties have the same ratio going in?
    Actually as the Tories win more votes up north and Labour down south, the old rules do not apply.

    The fact that the Tories have a better votes to seats ratio shows they do not favour Labour. In 2010 it was broadly even, the ones before that and after that favour the Tories. Hardly seems like a system rigged in favour of Labour when the Tories on average receive less votes per seat.

    You don't really care about the democraticness of it do you? If you did you would be outraged about how FPTP means UKIP can get 18% of the vote and one seat. Or how the Lib Dems consistently got around a fifth of the vote and barley ever more than 10% of the seats.

    In fact if it was really about being democratic you would be arguing for a proportional voting system. Instead you choose to ignore all the undemocratic and unproportional aspects of the voting system yet when it comes to boundaries (which do not favour Labour) you complain about other parties being 'anti democratic'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc:))
    Very good point, I'll admit I was simply picturing the cabinet.
    That said; for all his initial promise and likeability David Cameron has screwed over the Conservatives in a way that will continue to have an impact for God knows how long - at lesst until Brexit is over.
    But yes you're right and I think possibly that's what they need; a new name and some fresh ideas to mix things up.

    (Coming from a non Tory voter anyway)
    I didn't want an EU referendum, but I have a slightly grudging respect for Cameron in fulfilling his party's longstanding pledge. I think you can either view it as a reckless gamble or a brave attempt at resolving a perpetual problem.

    I have no doubt he was emboldened by the Scottish referendum in 2014. Cameron, to his credit, genuinely fought the Scots nationalists by their own rules, did it well, and what he campaigned for won the day. Unfortunately with the EU, there wasn't the same strength of positive underlying feeling, nor the same level of risk to warn against.

    There's some truth in the adage that all political careers end in failure. Cameron, however, was riding high - the first Tory majority won for almost quarter of a century, pretty well respected and secure in his position. He tried to stare the Brexiteers in the face and win, and he lost it all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Under Cameron's leadership, the Conservatives had a clear message of 'we're good with the economy' (whether they were or not is a different matter.) It resonated with voters and gave off the impression of the party being run by grown ups. Combined with Cameron's attempts to make the party more socially liberal and change their views on issues like grammar schools, it is clear to see how he was able to build an electoral-wining coalition of voters.

    Bizarrely, during the build up to the EU referendum, much of your party decided to disown Cameron's record. Not just his, but even successful Tory leaders like John Major and high profile former ministers like Hesseltine were spoke of in rather unfriendly terms. Rather than focus on economic competence, much of your party seemed to instead adopt shades of angry nationalism. Your party even managed to isolate businesses, which must take some doing.
    I don't think it was really nationalism in most cases, it was just an inherent desire to cast off the reforms that had served them well and try to roll back the clock. Which, given the relative fragility of the Conservative Party's recovery, was an incredibly stupid thing to do - not to mention fairly repugnant to my views about what the party should stand for.

    We always knew the EU was a running sore in the Conservative Party. Given the nature of the referendum, it was the unlikely Leavers that got exponentially more coverage in the media than the (far more numerous) unlikely Remainers getting out and making a case for continued membership.

    Both Cameron and the EU cocked up the "renegotiation" or whatever we called it then. Cameron was naive about how much the EU would shift to accommodate Britain, and the EU were idiotic not to realise the damage they would cause by appearing to tell him to sod off empty-handed.

    It still amazes me that while Cameron resigned, Juncker - who I consider far more responsible - seems barely grazed politically after one of the world's largest economies exited under his watch and without him lifting a finger to support it remaining in. If we were to imagine Cameron had lost the 2014 Scottish referendum and Scotland left the UK, I cannot see a circumstance where he wouldn't have had to resign in disgrace.

    May's initial honeymoon period and success was more a result of circumstance than skill. She took over at a time when UKIP had become irrelevant and Labour were in the midst of a civil war. 'Strong on the economy' became 'Brexit means Brexit'. All your party's hard working getting the young and professional vote, as you say, was undone as you instead focused on getting the UKIP and Labour vote. As you say, you traded votes in London marginals for those in Northern Labour safe seats.
    Yeah, but as much as I dislike her, I suppose I have to give a grudging respect for the popular vote that she achieved.

    Most bizarrely of all, much of your party seems to think the answer to this is Jacob Rees Mogg. Quite how they think he is going to win over young professionals and graduates and even the business sector like Cameron did, I don't know. I don't think the young are looking for social conservatism in a leader.
    Yep, well, as I've said - Kamikaze Toryism has always appealed to a significant chunk of the party. You'd think the problems that we currently face would make them see reason, but I think they'd actually need a bigger electoral kicking to make them belt-up and realise how elections are won.

    It doesn't help, of course, that many of these same irritating right-wing tosspots are sitting on astronomical majorities and have mailbags stuffed full of complaints about gay marriage and how the foreign doctors at the local hospital can't speak English properly. As far as things go, they're not risking a great deal by the party being out of power.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.