Who should lead the Tory Party ?

[looney]

Tony Blair was divisive (remember Clause 4!!) and look what happened.

Seem to remember him being called a reformer not a splitter.

 

[enigma]

I stand corrected on the swing factor, but the bottom line remains that the Tories going/staying right hasn't worked. The only way they will win is to get votes off people who vote Lib Dem and Labour.

 

[looney]

Hard to see how any Tory leader could fail to be divisive given the major fault line running through the Tory Party on Europe,.

How sad, your little commie chums at the BBC tell you that and you beleive it. Only about 5% of tory party members swing with Clarke on Europe, they are the fringe so he will lose.

The tories are more representative of britain on europe.



At the last election the Tories won another 33 seats at a time when Labour were deeply unpopular with their core vote. To win power they need to win an additional 126 seats. I find it very ahrd to see them doing that in one elction.

I dont, boundry changes will take about 20 and skew the margins needed, alot depends on the economy at the time and wether bombers have been active to send race relations spiralling down further.

Long time to go and a lot can happen.

 

[looney]

I stand corrected on the swing factor, but the bottom line remains that the Tories going/staying right hasn't worked. The only way they will win is to get votes off people who vote Lib Dem and Labour.

worked for thatcher. Depends on a lot of things. Its not about left/right but a radicalism that can appeal.

Tonys win was built on how shit the torries where in 1997, tony n co need to reciprocate, which they are beginning to do.

 

[Grendel]

About 2.5 million of the lost Conservative votes could be put down to a turnout 7% down on 1992.

In 97 there was virtually no real swing to labour(As a percentage of all voters), just millions of tories who didn't vote

Spot the difference.............................

Nicely selective in ignoring the following sentence:

"Assuming (unrealistically) that every one of those 7% would have voted Conservative..."

 

[looney]

(unrealistically)??

Why not assume? They voted tory, then they didn't vote.

So what does that imply?

"I'm a tory voter but the torys are now crap and Labour are not left wing enough for my liking"

Get a clue.

 

[Grendel]

(unrealistically)??

Why not assume? They voted tory, then they didn't vote.

So what does that imply?

"I'm a tory voter but the torys are now crap and Labour are not left wing enough for my liking"

Get a clue.

It implies nothing, because you don't know what the politics of those 7% were in the first place. You could just as easily say that they were Labour voters, who decided not to vote and account for Labour's increased showing by saying that they had 3.5 million people voting for them who had previously voted Conservative.

 

[looney]

What the f***? Are you stupid or something?

how can they be implied Labour voters when they represent a fall in the Tory vote?

" Hey I'm a Socialist who votes tory and after 17 years of tory government ive decided not to vote this time:

Haha, your a clown. f*** off.

 

[Uncle Buck]

What the f***? Are you stupid or something?

how can they be implied Labour voters when they represent a fall in the Tory vote?

" Hey I'm a Socialist who votes tory and after 17 years of tory government ive decided not to vote this time:

Haha, your a clown. f*** off.

Well done, constructive as ever. Surely now time for some reference to gimps and people performing sexual acts with donkeys.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Tony Blair for me. He's more right-wing than all of them Tory boys

 

[Grendel]

What the f***? Are you stupid or something?

You clearly are, as all you've presented so far is a half-formed arguement with no basis in fact whatsoever and resort to name-calling when you appear to be unable to comprehend a hypothetical situation.

 

[enigma]

You clearly are, as all you've presented so far is a half-formed arguement with no basis in fact whatsoever and resort to name-calling when you appear to be unable to comprehend a hypothetical situation.

Thats his problem.

 

[Dandyman]

How sad, your little commie chums at the BBC tell you that and you beleive it. Only about 5% of tory party members swing with Clarke on Europe, they are the fringe so he will lose.

The tories are more representative of britain on europe.



At the last election the Tories won another 33 seats at a time when Labour were deeply unpopular with their core vote. To win power they need to win an additional 126 seats. I find it very ahrd to see them doing that in one elction.

I dont, boundry changes will take about 20 and skew the margins needed, alot depends on the economy at the time and wether bombers have been active to send race relations spiralling down further.

Long time to go and a lot can happen.

I presume those "commies" include Nick Robinson, but then in the ever more odd neo-con wankfest of a world you inhabit former leaders of the FCS probably are dangerously left-wing.

The Tories are, IMO, capable of winning in 2013/14 whcih is why I hope Davis is elected. That should screw their chances with most people who want to live in the 21st rather than 19th century.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Britain has changed a great deal since the Thatcher and there is no appetite in this country for a right-wing agenda.

If the Tories hope to take over the middle ground they need to convince people they will make a real difference to peoples lives for the better, and that means distinctly different policies from New Labour.

I don't see Davis or Cameron offering distinctly different policies from Blair.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

David Davies 8/15
Ken Clarke 100/30
David Cameron 4/1
Liam Fox 12/1
Malcolm Rifkind 50/1
Michael Ancram 125/1
Michael Leigh 150/1
Boris Johnson 250/1
Ian Duncan Smith 500/1

Ladbrokes Plc

 

[Pavilionaire]

I think David Davies should stay at the FA, he's doing a great job.

 

[looney]

You clearly are, as all you've presented so far is a half-formed arguement with no basis in fact whatsoever and resort to name-calling when you appear to be unable to comprehend a hypothetical situation.

Of course it isn;t fact, thats why its politics, and how you can throw both "hypothetical" and "unrealistic" in the same arguement and expect to be taken seriously is beyond me.

Maybe I wouldn't resort to name calling if you didn't start taking the piss.

Ya Uncle Buck looking gimp blowing a rabid donkey.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Maradona

 

[BUTTERBALL]

Clarke is a bruiser, but his straight talking, no-nonsene style irrespective of his age, make him their strongest candidate. Although I am a lifelong Labour supporter, I think a strong opposition is absolutely key. I think Clarke is the man.

 

[parks]

Clarke is in the lead in this poll at present (after 'they are all scum' - naturally). Doesn't that lead to the question, how can the Tories possibly modernise and look forward when their potential leader will be 69 years old at the next election?

Its a fair point. But I do believe a stronger Tory party is needed to provide opposition to these tax the hell out of everyone Labourites! Do you also know that there are now more Civil Servants than EVER before and you and I are paying for them!

I hate them all! But I hate the EU wasters more!