Clarke or Davis?

I wanted to set up a poll on this, but apparently I do not have permission. It is harmless, so I wonder if, perhaps, Adam, you would allow me permission!

I am not about to do other polls on topics that might be seen as harmful or in bad taste!

Fredrik

Fred,

I'm afraid polls are another thing Adam did away with during his overhaul of the forum, sorry

FWIW, IMHO both Clarke and Davies have the 'comomon' touch, Clarke more so plus his views are closer to the centre than Davies so for that reason I'd go with Clarke. He's a very effective Commons operator too so would give Blair a run for his money at PMQs.

Cheers,

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik H:
Question 1: Who, Kenneth Clarke or David Davies to lead the Concervatives?

Clarke, and that's the opinion of most Tory voters according to various polls.

quote:

Question 2: Is the party electable with either?

Frankly I reckon they'd be doomed with Davies. Let's face it, he's a political nobody. It would take too long or require a serious Labour scandal for him to have any realistic chance of winning anything. Clarke is recognised, is a proven and competent politician with Cabinet experience and popular with conservative voters. A no-brainer methinks.

As I understand it Clarke is popular with conservative (and perhaps wavering) voters, but not within the parliamentary party itself. Not a great recipe for a leader.

I do think he'd make a good opposition leader though, certainly would land a few punches on Blair and Brown. I'm not a Tory voter but I do want an effective opposition.

Hobsons choice? Could either win next time? I suspect not. I'd say they should go with Clarke and accept he'll get the party closer but then retire and they might have a chance to win next time but one.

Bruce

At risk of being pedantic, I don't believe David Davies (newly elected conservative MP for Monmouth) is running. David Davis, on the other hand is running, and I would imagine, is very likely to win.

Why? Well, he has very little view of restoring the Tory party to power, and they seem determined to demonstrate that they don't know what is good for them. If they did, they'd have put Clarke in the last two times and they'd do it this time.



regards,

Tam

With Clarke I believe that they will win thre next election.
With Davies I believe they will be wiped out at the next election.
I am not a Tory supporter.

Bob

quote:

Question 1: Who, Kenneth Clarke or David Davies to lead the Concervatives?

Clarke is clearly a better candidate.

quote:

Question 2: Is the party electable with either?

Probably not, however a decent tory party leader could deny the labour party a majority at the next general election.

In today's politics you need charisma. That is why Blair gets away with whatever crosses his mind each morning.

Clarke has charisma. He will do well at the polls no doubt. If the tories want to win the next election they will probably have to do so with Clarke at the helm. The downside is his age. He will be 374 at the next election. Incidentally I do not care much for Clarke's politics.

The problem for the tories is that they have a lack of mp's with any form of charisma. Until they find someone with charisma, other than Clarke, they will struggle.

Funnily enough I quite liked Hague. Heavan only knows what you will make of that.

I agree Michael. hague was pushed too far too soon. He should have been held back til his age matched his looks. He has a very sharp mind and a very quick wit, neither of which are boasts that our beloved leader TB can boast. I saw him from the Strangers' gallery at PMQ when he was in opposition to John Major. The latter trounced him, which was a surprise based on the view I had formed from the media previously.

Leadership today is about televisual appeal and little else. On that basis the Tories are stuffed with any of the candidates, though Clarke is probably more of an asset than his rivals. He at least comes across as a normal bloke, which is pretty good for a director of BAT and a man who will wear suede shoes under a suit!

Somebody has to be able to challenge the current Stalinist regime before we lose all the things which made being Brirish something to be proud of. Once they have been lost they will not be easily restored.

Are all Conservative PMs illiberal megalomaniacs then?

I don't really care who leads the tory party, but if we don't get some real, effective and consistant opposition in the House of Commons soon there will be nothing left to argue over.

Bliar is flogging the family silver for a mess of pottage, whilst the tories are d*cking each other, and the lib-dems are waiting for opening time.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik H:
I wanted to set up a poll on this, but apparently I do not have permission. It is harmless, so I wonder if, perhaps, Adam, you would allow me permission!
Fredrik

Previous polls seemed pointless - this one could only be cruel.

Might let you do it, then.

quote:

Originally posted by Adam Meredith:

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik H:
I wanted to set up a poll on this,..., so I wonder if, perhaps, Adam, you would allow me permission!
Fredrik

Previous polls seemed pointless - this one could only be cruel.

Might let you do it, then.

Dear Adam,

So as not to give an unfair privelelge over others here, you could set this poll up yourself, and join in the cruelty, which really might be quite fun. You know you want to!

Sincerely, Fredrik

No poll, but never mind. The real thing will be just as worrying! The party seems not to have got itself over the idea of being electable yet, which is a bad thing, as a strong opposition (pressumably an electactable one) is essential in a democracy (as opposed to a one party and increasingly police atate - look at Be Afraid).

I have never liked the Clarke view on the Euro and European issues, which I would regard as very important in the long run. Davis does not have the public profile, but he seems logical and unflappable in interview. My vote would go to Davis, which is probably enough for people to think that I am out of touch. Possibly the right conclusion. I don't think Clarke can change his spots on Europe without appearing to lack conviction, which is important even if you disagree with it. Davis has not been tested, but he was my favourite last time. Shame Hague was not out of the ring, beacuse he might have done well at this point.

As for past encumbents, I always liked Major (who after all is said and done WON an election and held a very divided party together in very difficult conditions), even considering his pairing with Curry. It shows that he had human failings, but not ones that matter. She showed bigger failings for failing to demonstrate discretion...

Sincerely, Fredrik

Clarke is a man of conviction. He is well placed to benefit from the fact that the Euro, from an economic, and not strictly a xenophobic/jingoistic/Eurosceptic POV isn't such a good idea any more.

Clarke is electable, but if you turn back the clock ten years, Blair was the only electable choice for the Labour party. The difference between these two is that one has integrity, the other is an unprincipled illiberal megalomaniac. In terms of political spectrum though they both occupy almost exactly the same ground.

Electability, it seems, is the ability to occupy centre ground without dividing your party. I suppose this takes either charisma, vision and/or a rod of iron.

My reckoning is that Clarke has enough charisma and a big enough personality not to need a rod of iron.