What happens to Michael Howard now?

The rational assesment looks exactly as you say, voters unhappy with Labour but unconvinced by the 'usual' alternative. A vibrant Conservative party would have slaughtered Labur if I read the dissatisfaction correctly. Quite a suprising election in the end.

Howard will know this, but I do not see him falling on his sword. Would he ever beat a Brown-led Labour though?

Brown-Shirted led Labour maybe ?


Fritz Von I've just returned from three hours fun & games at the Dole office, strangely enough not one soul asked me about the election and to pass on their congratulations to Our Tone!!!

Hattersly made a interesting comment on ITV coverage.

The three parties all had the wrong leaders.
Brown, Clarke, Campbell

That would have been a better bunch too choose from.

I did my very best to oust Brown from his constituency (as he's my MP, alas). Sadly, I am in the minority. I reckon having your local MP as chancellor or PM can't be very good for the constituency as they'd never be there...

Ah well, next time maybe we'll get someone better in. Though I'm not so sure about any of the alternatives either...

John

Matthew, agree about Campbell. A fine guy (assuming we're talking about Ming here, and not some other Campbell). He's my folks' MP, and he's a decent MP at that...

John

Looks like Howard has read the situation and is avoiding the usual Tory back-stabbing by resigning anyway. Probably a wise move.

He just announced live on TV that he would "step aside sooner rather than later" to give his successor plenty of time before the next election.

quote:

The reality is that the labour votes went to Lib Dem, not Tory.

If you examine the results on the BBC News web-site on a constituency basis, that doesn't apear to be strictly true. There are some where labour lost votes to the LDs, but others where the tories were the undeniable winners and took votes from the LDs as well.

Howard has just announced (on the 1pm news) his intention of resigning as soon as the party reach a decision on what (if any) changes they want to make to the leadership election process.

quote:

Originally posted by David Stewart:
Howard has just announced (on the 1pm news) his intention of resigning as soon as the party reach a decision on what (if any) changes they want to make to the leadership election process.

Howard is 'more than keen' to reform the way that the Conservative party chooses its leader. At the moment it's very dependent on the constituency parties (blue rinse brigade) who are completely out of touch with the elctorate, including those who vote Conservative.

A change to the leadership is likely to allow Conservative MPs to have a bigger say. This will result in less 'hard right' candidates.

Howard did a very good job in unifying the party. They never had a realistic hope of forming a government just 18 months after his appointment. If he succeeds in bringing in a system for appointing a new leader which meets more favour with the electorate, he will be regarded very warmly in the annals of Conservative Party history.

I guess that at the next election we'll have a 'softer edged' Conservative party and a Labour party which will have moved to the left.

End of ramblings.
Regards
Steve M

The Conservatives need someone with charisma - difficult that, the only names that come to mind are...
.
.
.
struggling
.
.
.

I wonder if we've seen the last of William Hague.

quote:

Originally posted by MichaelC:
The Conservatives need someone with charisma - difficult that, the only names that come to mind are...
.
.
.
struggling
.
.
.

Tony Blair?

Sir Mark