Two Tory Lost Leaders

No Lustre

Not quite political suicide but David Davis has mutilated his political career. He will never recover to become an aspirant Home Secretary again.

His resignation was so eccentric that he will be forever branded an unsafe pair of hands. Personally, I like him and I have enjoyed good relations with him. We even cooperated a few years ago campaigning against an insurance scandal.

But he resigned when his career had luckily peaked. It was not a good idea to leap into the limelight. National exposure is valuable when politicians’ strengths are exposed: damaging when weaknesses are flaunted.

David cannot do gravitas, fake sincerity or handle rhetoric. His macho background and good looks meant he was leading the election for Tory leader by a broken nose over David Cameron.  Labour MPs lusting for a Davis victory offered fervent prayers.

His weaknesses were well known to us from his woeful Commons performances. Fortunately for the Tory Party his conference speech alarmed them in time to switch. It was lack-lustre and dismal. As always, the words are elevated and ostentatious. But his delivery is casual, apologetic and as passionate as someone reading the weather forecast. He cannot do lustre.

David is trying to put a brave face on the by-election. But it will be remembered as the egotist versus the loonies. He polled 5,000 fewer votes than last time and the public’s view have not moved in his direction. Politics Home polled people about 42 days on June 20, just after Davis resigned, and again at the beginning of this week. It found 65% of respondents supporting 42 days at the beginning of the Davis campaign, and 66% now.

His future now will be to posture resentfully around the low political foothills. He was promoted beyond his ability. There is no way back. Very much like a Tory Eric Heffner.

Lost Leader Two

Boris Johnson is falling from hero to zero as rapidly as Ratner did after he described his merchandise as crap.

It not the loss of three of his appointed staff that has accelerated his fall. Nor is it the riot he incited by attacking the non-existent problem of drinking on tubes. Not even his  expensive plans for new Routemaster buses. His anti-environment, polluting reversal of London’s clean air policy has helped his decline and outraged many Londoners. His iniial posturing spin on street crime is daily mocked by the reality.

But his mortal sin, that exposed his wretched butterfly brained weakness, happened on Radio 4. It was his first big mayoral interview. Johnson was playing the role of defender of Londoners' wallets  and was meant to showcase his new value for money approach to the Olympics. Only there was a key document that he had not only failed to read, but also denied its existence.

How London's mayor could arrive on national radio ignorant of the contract that guarantees a cap on how much Londoners will pay for the Olympics is a mystery. A few phone calls later and it was made clear that it was not only up on public websites, but large numbers of us had copies tucked away in our filing systems.

This is the hapless, hopeless Boris that we know and love so well in Commons. Calamities R us. It will get worse.

Dead cat bounce

Those who have been enjoying a self induced frenzy at the prospect of Glasgow East going SNP should now sober up. The Telegraph will report tomorrow an ICM poll in Glasgow East, which puts Labour on 47% and the SNP on 33%, a massive 15 points behind. That’s encouraging for Labour as the wheels are coming off the SNP bandwagon.

There was an odd reaction when I suggested last week that religion might be a factor. It still is to a real but lessening extent in some parts of Scotland. I am not alone. An article in today’s Times observes:

“Another important tribal element is religion. Glasgow East is predominantly Roman Catholic, while Mr Mason is a Baptist. The Government's decision to delay the controversial Embryology Bill may prove to be a canny tactic and head off potential resentment.”

Art, beer and music

Celf Caerleon Arts Festival this afternoon was thriving untroubled by yesterday’s monsoon.

This unique statue and arts fest is in its fifth glorious year. For the first time it has morphed with a Beer and Music Festival very agreeably. What more could anyone ask for on a summer’s afternoon?

The theme this year is about saving Planet Earth - and how the sensible disposal of waste is all part of the battle. An impressive line up of Welsh and English sculptors are interpreting the theme either by working with recyclable material such as scrap metal, or carving in wood to reflect the theme.

There has been cooperation with Newport’s splendid Wastesavers to construct works of art from garbage.

This afternoon’s atmosphere was as creatively exuberant, intriguing and provocative as ever.

Well done, everyone.

Comments

[Huw O'Sullivan]

Quite right on David Davies, an obviously insane ploy that leaves people with the impression that tories are principled and not afraid to put their careers on the line to highlight a government which is constantly at odds with the will of the electorate.
On the other hand it gives the impression that there are two camps in the labour party, those who believe what they are doing on "terror" is right, but daren't stand up for it in any meaningful way, and those who oppose what the party is doing on "terror" but daren't stand up for it in any meaningful way.

Hmmmm, actually maybe he is not so insane after all. There are after all fewer and fewer people who clearly recall exactly how unprincipled the tories are, and more and more people with recent experience of how unprincipled new labour is.
There are after all a lot of voters now who were too young to care about politics when the tories were last in power.

I say again, Paul on this issue you are failing to see that while it may be a silly and foolish gesture to practiced politicians, the general public are impressed after all those years of Tony Blair staking his non existent reputation on issue after failed issue, without ever seeming to feel that there should be a consequence for being wrong, that a politician would oppose something and risk his seat to show how much he opposes it (even if he is only pretending to oppose it)
and leave it to the electorate to decide if they supported him or the government on this one issue.
They did support him and he is now too popular with the people to be kept off the front bench, if Cameron were to try that, it would damage himself and he is not going to do that.

EG How many current tories do you think the average person in the UK knows by name
and how many of those are popular?

[paulflynn]

Thanks Huw. Interesting stuff. You may be in a better position to judge some of these things than I am. from the inside I know that the original 90 day gimmick was intended to paint the Tories as 'soft on terrorism.' My objection then and to 42 days is that it is unnecessary and is likely to incite more terrorists.

David Davis was certain to be Home Secretary if the Tories win. His replacement is much brighter although he lacks charisma. Davis will have a minor role but his chances of holding one of he great offices of state have gone, in my view. There is no great grassroots support in the Tory Party for the 'liberty' line that he championed.

I hope you are right on the public's assessment of MPs. My backing for causes has not been populist on Helmand and drugs. We will see how this works out when I stand for election in future.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

As most of what I write to you is critical or argumentative, you may not realise Paul that I do actually admire you and your stances on many issues.
I do believe that you are sincere in them too.
But the problem I have, is that yes you oppose the party line on these things by speaking and voting against them, the trouble is, there are politicians who vote against their party lines at times, when their party will win the vote anyway and are utterly insincere about the stance they take.
They take it because their party is willing to let them go against the party line because it helps to ensure they are popular in their constituency and therefore get reelected next time, hopefully being part of bringing said party to power.
The trouble with that is that your principled position and their unprincipled position, look identical and to all intents and effect are identical.
I imagine you will be re-elected as long as you continue to stand, but to what purpose, to bring another new labour government in, to continue doing what they have been doing, increasing terror laws, a new nuclear deterrent, invasions, occupations and sabre rattling, new nuclear power stations, ever increasing pension age, the ever increasing prison population, no moves to increase and expand democracy in the UK, no demonstration that they admire, believe in or even understand democracy.
You will no doubt say better new labour than the tories, but to be honest, I cannot see a great deal of difference.
I will support neither, the blood on all our hands is unforgivable and while New Labour has done these things, the Tories would have done them too, both are the very bottom of the barrel and I say as I rather tiresomely always say to you Paul, that your party does you no credit. I don't believe it stands for the things you considered it stood for when you joined it and I don't believe it ever will again. It has chosen the road of power over principle and no one ever goes back from that.
It is not the party you joined, it is not the party people used to support and the sooner people realise that and move on from it, the sooner they can have a party that does stand for something, that does believe in something other than the tories would be worse.
Roll on that day.

[paulflynn]

Thanks Huw for your frank comment which I greatly appreciate. I will stand at the next election and I will try to get your vote - for me if not for he Prtay. In 1996 I said that we would win the General Election and lose the party.

We have not lost it yet, but it has been hollowed out by bad decisions and retreats from our values. On Friday someone who left the Newport West Party over Iraq, rejoined. The party must be rebuilt. In the next election the choices in Newport West will be between me, a conservative or a protest vote. I am sure you will make the correct decision.

[Will S]

I think Huw makes a point that many readers of this blog would wish to associate themselves with.

Yet, if I may go over this again, I do believe that some people may be purposefully or not misrepresenting the intentions of David Davis. As I understand it he stood down not so that the law would be changed, he knew that it would not be set in place anyway. He stood down in order to change the majority view in this country that 42 days are necessary or acceptable.

I agree with him on this. It hearkens back to the 'olden days' of politics, where politicians tried to change public opinion instead of responding to it. After all, there is very little sense in changing one or another law, if public opinion does not change accordingly. It is through a debate and by talking about issues that we can both alter views and reforge the link between electors and elected.

David Davis' attempt may have failed and it may have been in part down to his ego, yet the simple fact that he attempted to reconnect the public with the political system is one that I can respect.

[paulflynn]

Thanks Will S.

Why I continue to mock David Davis is that he is a true Don Quixote - tilting at the windmill of 42 days that is never going to become law.

The Lords will hammer it and the press-ganged coalition in the Commons will be very difficult to assemble again. It is a dead parrot. I was in the same lobby as David Davis on this issue.

Nor can I see anything heroic in risking a contest at great public expense when you have first persuaded your only serious opposition, the Lib Dems, not to stand. This was virtually a rigged election.

I certainly do not share his views on the valuable DNA and CCTV cameras. They have positive virtues.

As the figures I quoted proved, public opinions has not altered on this subject. So this method is not an effective way of raising an issue. The press are fascinated with the Tories at the moment and he could have had far more influence as a shadow cabinet member rather than talking to audiences in his constituency.

[Dave Atherton]

Of course Bob Humphries has my heart felt feelings for his dilemma. However to blame it on SHS is simplistic or simply wrong. Here is an article by Professor Nilsson on SHS and the link to lung cancer. You will no doubt notice that you are 11.5 times more at risk from sunshine.

"While accepting the plausibility of the lung cancer link and the fact that numerous studies appear to show a statistically significant increase in risk, has questioned its epidemiological significance (13). He offered estimates of the annual incidence of cancer in a population of 100,000 resulting from various environmental factors: unknown (177), diet (135), smoking (68), other lifestyle factors (45), sunshine (23)...environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) (2).

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA7A4.htm

[paulflynn]

There has been over 700 comments on this subject over the past two weeks. The item on Bob Humphrys speaks for itself.

Perhaps y0u will read the previous threads.