David Cameron's trip to Rwanda while his constituency and much of Britain are under water is causing controversy, so we'll take the unusual step of running two polls simultaneously.
David Cameron's trip to Rwanda while his constituency and much of Britain are under water is causing controversy, so we'll take the unusual step of running two polls simultaneously.
Comments
Yes, but...
I don't think the plan to send 40 volunteers including 8 MPs was well thought-through. But given that this project was in full swing, that there was little he could do to help his constituents, that his visit is only brief, and that he ought to be able to rely on his Shadow Cabinet to maintain pressure on the Government for a couple of days, I don't think he was wrong to carry through with his commitment.
What matters is what he makes of it, not the fact that he went. On that basis, his visit is looking more shaky.
Irrelevant
It is the fact that he could have done nothing more useful that stood around making vaccuous speeches and pretending that his presence was valuable that says to me this is a Tabloid storm in a tea cup.
Yes and no
Quite right, in principle, Gavin. But the problem for him is that tabloid opinion matters. And PMQs today demonstrated that it had given Brown a cheap get-out of what should have been a deeply embarrassing half-hour. I still think his decision was right in the circumstances, but he probably never should have offered a hostage to fortune, in the way that he did with this Rwanda trip. You've got to wonder what advice he's getting, and certainly question the support from his team.
Something is still not right in the Tory party. I could almost start to feel sorry for him, if it weren't for the fact that I hate what Project Cameron stands for.
I'm not sure why the reports
I'm not sure why the reports of him being on some sort of jolly whilst Britain drowns are being taken as fact by everyone. He has visited parts of Britain that have been flooded - probably more so than Brown. I too am starting to feel sorry for the guy - he is being relentless kicked whilst down. But a man who courts the media has to be expected to be biten by it too.
As a sign of the bad times at CCHQ, William Hill has even opened a book today on the next Tory leader! Hague is favourite at 9/4, Davies at 5/1 and Osbourne 10/1. Terrible odds if you ask me! I am tempted more by the 33/1 outsider Michael Gove! - Worth a quid I reckon (though no more!)
Only a few months ago William Hill wouldn't have thought about these odds. And when you look down the list, it doesn't make good reading for the future of the party.
What a choice!
Wow. Brings it home, doesn't it? It's not exactly Thatcher, Whitelaw, Howe, Lawson, Hurd, Tebbitt, Ridley, Parkinson, Heseltine is it?
I'm with you on Gove - very smart cookie, but is he sellable to the public, and sufficiently different to Cameron in the eyes of traditionalist Tories? Strike off Osborne, Letwin, Willetts and Maude - anyone too closely associated with the failures of Project Cameron would be out of the running if this actually happened (which I doubt).
If, to paraphrase Malcolm Muggeridge, a PM needs to have the demeanour either of a bishop or a bookie, clearly Brown is a bishop (as a nice change from his turf-accountant predecessor). The Tories would have to find either an Archbishop, to out-sermonise the Son of the Manse, or a bookie to contrast with him.
Boris has clearly grasped this (with his discussions of roundheads, cavaliers, puritans and so on), and gone for the contrasting image, although people may see him more in the role of Bertie Wooster being taken to the cleaners yet again by the bookies, rather than as one of the bookies themselves, which would not be a helpful image. Ken Clarke also got it - perfect bookie material, but too late for another run now. IDS makes a good bishop, but people weren't ready to sober up then, and I doubt he can win a battle of the pulpits against Brown now.
Most of that list are neither one thing nor the other - so it would probably come down to Hague (if he wanted it) vs Davis. You'd definitely put Hague in the bookie category, whereas Davis is more perplexing. That probably suggests Hague to win if it came to it, but can you imagine how much ammunition that would give Brown, if the Conservatives started recycling their failed leaders?
Their most attractive alternative, and the man who should have got it last time, is Fox, but he has done himself no favours sulking at Defence (though Cameron deserves equal blame for giving him that brief rather than one that suited his style, such as Health or Welfare). He's started to pull his socks up, so if he carries on and particularly if he were given a more suitable brief, he might be the obvious choice after they lose the next election. Not sure which category he falls into, though.
They're in a mess alright. Probably means Cameron is safe until the election. Cameron, I would say, is a clergyman, but a vicar to Brown's bishop.
Of course, if the economy hits the rocks, roles will be reversed. Whoever is Tory leader at the time should get the benefit, regardless of capability and demeanour. Probably the best the Tories can do is cross their fingers and hope it crashes soon. On that basis, it would help if they were talking the tough language that may not be popular now, but would look wise with the benefit of hindsight. They need to find themselves a convincing archbishop, and quick. But thundering moral authority isn't this lot's strong-point, is it? Davis is probably the closest they've got, so perhaps that swings me back in his favour.
I completely agree with your
I completely agree with your assessment of the Tory's hopes - they can only wait for a serious economic crash on the scale of the early 1990s. What sort of a strategy is that?
With Cameron's seeming failure they have now virtually exhausted every single option available to them. It has been 15 years and the Tories have barely shifted an inch in the polls, still have no idea what to stand for, what direction they should be heading and who should be leading them (one of the very few credible options being a man who has already fallen at the first). Sitting back and hoping for the country to collapse is a very depressing strategy and sends out the worse possible signals about the current state of British politics. We do not have an alternative in the Conservatives but a less talented bunch of cowards. Even Labour during their darkest days of the 1980s picked themselves up more quickly than this.
Given that a collapse in the economy is the only thing that can save them, it is ironic that it was Labour leader Harold MacMillan who summed up their hopes when he described the hardest thing to running the country as "events, my dear boy, events". How about an alternative, my dear Dave, an alternative?
... as we're on this, I've
... as we're on this, I've taken a look at the next Labour leadership odds. Makes interesting reading too. They are obviously in the advantageous position of being in government and so having figures with a higher profile. The front runners are:
Miliband, David 6/4
Alexander, D 3/1
Balls, Ed 6/1
Benn, Hilary 8/1
Darling, Alistair 10/1
Smith, J 10/1
Johnson, Alan 12/1
No surprises Miliband is the favourite, slightly more surpring that Benn, Balls and Smith are higher than Johnson (maybe his time has passed?). For those who like an outsider, Tony Blair is at 100/1 and for the plain reckless, Cherie Blair is 500/1!
The shorter odds alone reflect not only the higher profiles of the Labour candidates, but also the higher concentration of talent. Having said that, even these Labour candidates are not up to the standards of the heavyweights of old.
Mayor of London
How about Jade Goody, at 500/1 for Mayor of London? Derek Laud (strange bloke from Big Brother and supposed former speech-writer for Maggie) at 33/1 is only slightly less ridiculous.
Macmillan Labour?
Harold Macmillan was a Conservative Prime Minister!
Closing
The heat seems to have gone out of this, on this site at least, so I'm going to close this poll and we'll go back to just the one.