Who'll win the Tory leadership vote?

[Taxloss]

I know it's as difficult to read as a Papal conclave, but let's put in the ante now with a simple, no-commitment, unscientific guess.

I will open the bidding with David Davis, the bookies' favourite.

[fedsron2us]

1. I will second your choice.

His conference speech was poor but he has the backing of a substantial number of MPs and probably reflects the attitudes of a sizable caucus of hard core Tories out in the country. I think that Cameron's classic establishment background of Eton, Guards and Whites club may count against him. Some might unkindly think that the choice appears to be between class traitor in the form of Davis or class enemy in the form of Cameron.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1817795,00.html

edit for link

[fedsron2us]

10. My mistake. Cameron is Eton, Oxford and Whites club

He gave the Guards a miss.

[non sociopath skin]

2. I'm going to chance my arm and go for pretty boy.

The blue-rinse set seem to be warming to the idea of a Blair clone rather than another biter-off of live chicken heads.

I never underestimate the carnivorous instincts of the Party of the Night though ...

The Skin

[tjwmason]

3. I'm going with Cameron.

There is a strong anti-Davis movement, at the moment this is split between Clarke and Cameron but in the final vote it will be united under whichever goes through.

Clarke would have great trouble beating Davis, there is enough anti-Europeanism for that, Cameron doesn't have that problem.

Both Clarke and Davis are being presented as possible party-splitters (though I fail to see how somebody who lived through Hague and I.D.S. would leave because the party is too right-wing) - which places Cameron as the potential unity candidate.

[T_i_B]

5. Another one going with Cameron

I don't think too much of him, but I think that there is a good chance that his conference performance will have swayed a few grassroots Tories.

Now that Rifkind is out, my own preference would be Clarke, but then again I'm not a Tory and the chances are the Tories will go for either Cameron or Davis.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. I'll pick Clarke then

Someone's got to :-)

David Cameron is very unknown - unlike Blair, who had been an opposition spokesman for some years when he became Labour's Great Next Thing. Without looking it up, how many people can say what he did before the general election? And what's his post now? Remember it's the Conservatives - if in doubt, stick with the old thing that you know. IDS probably had more experience than Cameron when elected.

I suspect the thought of getting into power under Clarke, as opposed to staying too right wing with Davis, will entice the Tory voters to him. Europe is not such a divisive issue now to them.

[non sociopath skin]

6. "Europe is not such a divisive issue now to them."

Not so sure about that, Mu. I get the distinct impression that europhobia is now a gut instinct with the vast majority of Tory grassroots members and, despite his recent recanting, I suspect that Clarke is still seen as a europhile.

The Skin

[fedsron2us]

11. I would prefer Clarke

but I did not vote for him because with my record on predictions it would certainly knacker his chances.

[Taxloss]

7. Here's a good summary of the present state of the runners and riders:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4335760.stm

To sum up as briefly as possible: it's Pretty Boy ahead by a nose, Bruiser making heavy work in the slop but still the choice of the enclosure, Maggie's Pick coming up on the inside, burst of speed from Maggie's Pick, BATbloke and Kitten Heels fading.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Kitten Heels was a non-starter

though there was a stableyard rumour that Edward "God Botherer" Leigh would be entered at the last minute.

[Taxloss]

9. She looked lame from the off.

Those heels, probably.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

12. Guess who met with Murdoch yesterday ...

"Mr Cameron had a private meeting yesterday with the media mogul Rupert Murdoch."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article319536.ece

I still say Davis though. I just can't see the membership going for Cameron

[fedsron2us]

13. Murdoch may help him win a General Election

but I am not sure that he pulls that many votes amongst the Tory party faithful in the leadership contest. The views of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph may count for a lot more in that battle. The former of those two Conservative stalwarts is most definitely hostile to Cameron. I suppose Murdoch might assist him over the next few weeks by running positive story lines on the 'drugs' issue.

[Taxloss]

14. The Mail looks like it might be edging to Cameron.

The Evening Standard (Mail Lite) ran the most extraordinary soft-soap piece about him today on its front page, dealing with his efforts to help a family member overcome a heroin problem. It was almost schoolgirl-gushy. Maybe that's a pitch to Londoners, but the Standard apple rarely falls far from the Mail tree.

It was also easy to see how the piece could have been rewritten as an attack on Cameron - they could have savaged him, but chose to paint him as St Francis.

My immediate thought on seeing the front page was "Bloody hell, Cameron looks like going the distance".

[fedsron2us]

15. 'Drugs, David Cameron and the question that must be answered'

was the title of a full page editorial in todays Daily Mail. It sounded pretty hostile to me. The politics.co.uk web site described it as a 'scathing condemnation of Tory leadership hopeful David Cameron'

http://www.politics.co.uk/issueoftheday/daily-mail-politicians-must-come-clean-$15066594.htm

Here is the link to the Mail article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=365365

I think the Mail group tones down its usual right wing rhetoric in the Evening Standard because it has to sell the paper to such a diverse population in London. Metropolitan sentiment is probably not going have that much influence on the Tory leadership election since most of the votes lie in the hands of people in the back woods. I think many of them are hard core Mail readers who will vote for Davis. The Daily Telegraph audience is more tricky to assess. I suspect it contains many individuals who may find Cameron's toff background more appealing. My gut feeling is still that this leadership election will leave the Conservative party more divided than ever.

[Taxloss]

16. What a loathsome piece! Ugh, the Mail really is vile.

But that deals with his refusal to deny taking cannabis at university, which is really a non-issue (much to the Mail's displeasure). Even Tory grassroots and Mail readers aren't going to fixate on that. And it doesn't so much attack Cameron as attack the permissive society.

The Standard/heroin piece was different - really, really flattering.

But who knows? Who knows what sickening ambitions lurk in the cerebellum of Paul Dacre?

[fedsron2us]

17. The Standard is softcore. The Mail is hardcore.

You feel dirty just reading it. Truly it is a nasty paper for nasty people.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Saturday Telegraph lead story: Cameron on the rack

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/15/ntory15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/15/ixportaltop.html

So they think it causes him problems in the party, but their leader says it shouldn't:

Yesterday, one newspaper devoted an entire page to an editorial entitled "Drugs, David Cameron and a question that must be answered". But five minutes' thought would make it obvious why any politician should refuse to be drawn on to this subject. For each reply would provoke more questions. What kind of drugs did you take? How often? When did you stop?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/15/dl1501.xml

Good to see the Tory press taking lumps out of each other.

[Kipling]

19. Oh my.

it reeks of the terrible ambivalence that exists amongst Britain's ruling class over drug-taking.
Since when did the Mail take anything other than an attitude of brown-nosed subserviance to the UK's "ruling class"?

In America, a land of truly transparent democracy, where holders of high office have to submit themselves to ruthless and unsparing scrutiny by Congressional committees, Mr Cameron's silence would be deemed astonishing and unacceptable.
Apparently not quite ruthless and unsparing enough to weed out such tiddling issues as treason, lying, electoral fraud and manslaughter.




Oh Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, thy something something stone, etc.
May thy just and awful wrath fall upon the Daily Mail, and upon it's dread editor, Paul Dacre, for he hath indulged in great hypocrisy and general wankery. Yea, and upon shareholders thereof, unto the ninth generation.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

20. Hah!

"In America, a land of truly transparent democracy, where holders of high office have to submit themselves to ruthless and unsparing scrutiny by Congressional committees, Mr Cameron's silence would be deemed astonishing and unacceptable."

yeah -- like George "I won't talk about drugs pre-1974" Bush

[tjwmason]

21. Not wishing to appear too machiavellian

and perhaps I've been watching The House of Cards too much - this whole drugs thing with Cameron makes me wonder who is trying to keep him out and why.

Cannabis at university seems to me the obvious irrelevant side-issue to float around before dredging up the heroin adict.

This looks like nasty campaigning at its worst.

[fedsron2us]

22. It is an obvious smear campaign

but I think it is as much about power, jobs and influence as it is ideology. If you look at most policy areas Cameron and Davis hold remarkably similar views. The reason it has got so nasty is that the Tories actually believe they can win the next General Election when Blair finally quits. As a result the victor of the leadership election enertains real hopes of becoming the next PM. The danger for the Conservatives is that the animosity generated in the campaign will spill over into its aftermath. The defeated candidate and his followers are likely to be sore losers. We are going to see a lot more political blood shed.

[T_i_B]

23. It's getting nastier

I'll just post the Torygraph ant Independent articles as I won't touch the news of the screws but George Osbourne is now being dragged into this in quite a big way. The only question I have is why nothing ever comes out about Labour MP's having done any of this stuff?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/16/nosb16.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/16/ixportaltop.html

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor and David Cameron's leadership campaign manager, last night denied allegations of drug use and hit out at what he called an "absurd smear campaign" to bring down his friend.

The senior Tory MP mounted an impassioned defence after two Sunday newspapers alleged he had shared nights out with a drug-taking prostitute.

Mr Osborne, 34, who is widely seen as a rising star and a possible future leader himself, said the allegations were "desperate stuff". The News of the World and The Sunday Mirror published pictures of Mr Osborne with Natalie Rowe, 42, which the former prostitute claimed also featured drugs paraphenalia.

Mr Osborne, the MP for Tatton, said: "The allegations are completely untrue and dredging up a photo from when I was 22 years old is pretty desperate stuff. This is merely part of an absurd smear campaign to divert attention from the issues that matter in this leadership contest and I am confident that people will not be distracted by this rubbish."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article319994.ece

The Conservative drugs controversy took a new twist last night after a Sunday newspaper printed a 1994 picture of a youthful George Osborne, a close ally of leadership frontrunner, David Cameron, with his arm around Natalie Rowe, a woman described as a "cocaine-snorting hooker". The shadow Chancellor denied taking drugs with her.

The News of the World reported that the 34-year-old, married father of two admitted he knew her, and acknowledged one of his best friends fathered her child and became a drug addict. Mr Osborne's close friend Mr Cameron, the shadow Education Secretary, is himself embroiled in a controversy over his refusal to state whether he used drugs before he entered politics. On Friday, Mr Cameron acknowledged that a close family member went through a " dreadful problem" with narcotics, adding that he was "incredibly proud" of the way his relative had come through their difficulties.

Last night, Mr Osborne suggested that he was the victim of a "smear campaign". In a statement, the MP for Tatton said: "The allegations are completely untrue, and dredging up a photo from when I was 22 is pretty desperate stuff."

[non sociopath skin]

24. Yup, it's getting pretty low down and dirty.

The right-wing press seems to be falling over itself to ensure that the Tories elect another far-right loser.

Perhaps we should coin a new maxim for the right: "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make human."

I'm getting desperately close to feeling sorry for Cameron and Osborne. Must fight it ...

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. And this in a party whose sainted ex-leader proudly poses

for photos with a war criminal, and calls him "a great friend of Britain" (I'm talking about Pinochet, in case there's any confusion about later war criminals :-)). You'd think they'd be more concerned about that kind of acquaintance.

[T_i_B]

26. Never mind Pinochet

The thing this brings to mind is Jeffery Archer and the numerous "back to basics" scandals of the Major years. The sort of sleaze the Tory party has unfortunately built up a reputation for.

It also makes me wonder why no other party seems to get caught with their pants down quite as much as the Tories do but there you go.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. The thing is, this isn't sleaze

but the Tory opponents of Cameron are trying to paint it like that. This is either smoking dope while a student (quite likely, but also quite typical), or an accusation in the News of the World by someone paid for their story. Outside that, it's having friends or family who have had strong drug problems. And has Cameron actually been a "all drugs are evil" guy? If not, then there's not really much hypocrisy involved either.

As NSS said, I can feel a little sympathy for Cameron and Osborne on this; and I know feel Blunkett is being hounded - who cares what he's doing with an estate agent? When it was the (married) publisher of The Spectator, that was of some interest (sleeping with the enemy?), and the questions over visas and expenses of some public import (though not exactly the worst thing done by government ministers from either party); but I don't give a toss what a divorced man does with a single woman.

[fedsron2us]

28. There is a certain amount of inter generational fighting going on here.

Davis and most of his supporters are a good 10-20 years older than Cameron and Osborne. They have been waiting for a long time for their chance of high office. Now it looks as though the younger tranche of Tory MPs may deny them that opportunity. It is perhaps not surprising that the old guard are reluctant to go down without a bitter battle since they have little to lose and everything to gain. It must be also remembered that the average Tory party member is probably aged over 60 and may not relish the prospect of a whippersnapper like Cameron as leader. A pundit on TV this lunch time expressed the view that, if Cameron won, it was highly likely that he would crash and burn like William Hague. There would be just too many people within his party who would be ready to turn on him at the first sign of trouble. The smart money appeared to be on Davis as leader with Cameron occupying one of the senior cabinet posts. Of course with the smell of blood in the air the Tory party may just work itself into such a frenzy that it tears itself apart.

[sweetheart]

29. DD is the moron for me

Cameron is slick, but too young; and if it is not to be clarke, then
any choice is irrelevant... an opposition leader in a declining party.

David Davis is perfect for that job.

[LSdemocrat]

30. One can only hope