For Want of A Vote...

The Smoking Room Bar – Palace of Westminster – October 30th 2003

D: Norman, mind if I join you?

N: Not at all, David – are you trying to avoid this Diwali nonsense?

D: ‘Fraid so – they don’t go in for it much in my neck of the woods, you know.

N: Nor mine – did you see the papers this morning? I can’t believe the Sun – “it’s worse than that, he’s survived”. I mean, what kind of irresponsible shit do they employ as a sub these days?

D: I know but at least the Mail and the Telegraph were a little kinder. Still, I can’t help but wonder..

N: What’s that, my dear fellow?

D: Whether we’ve really done the right thing.

N: Look, the man has had his problems and Brent was a terrible result but we’ve had bad by-elections before and we’ve not dropped the pilot. In any case, after what happened with Margaret, we couldn’t have knifed another leader – my Chairman wouldn’t have forgiven me for one. He told me a couple of the committee were going to join bloody UKIP if we’d done it.

D: Yes, I know but are we really going anywhere with Iain? I mean, we’re flat lining in the polls for God’s sake and Teflon Tony is heading for a third election win.

N: Look, old boy, we know Blair’s going to win again – you don’t overthrow a majority of 160 or more in one hit. In any case, they’re starting to fall apart by themselves – they’ve lost Cook, Denham, that old harridan Short and Milburn could see which way the wind was blowing – “spend more time with his family” more like, “the ship’s hit the iceberg and I’m the first one in the lifeboat”.

Iain gets the majority down to 50 or 60, we then get a new leader in the next Parliament and when Blair quits, as he will, for his well-paid job with the UN or the IMF or whatever, we can pile into the dour Scotsman. Broon is hopeless as a campaigner, we all know it. Put someone half-decent against him in ’09 or 10 and we’ll be back with a thumping majority, mark my words.

D: Such as?

N: Beg your pardon…

D: Who would we put up against Brown – Portillo, Michael, Davis, Ken, William?

N: Well, certainly not Portillo – the 2001 election broke him as you know. Michael Howard’s a good man.

D: Well, we’d certainly get the vampire vote and the undead vote.

N: I know what you mean – the Parliamentary Party won’t back Ken Clarke, the man’s virtually a liberal. William doesn’t want to do it again. David Davis is a possibility – sound chap, we could do a lot worse.

D: What about one of the younger types?

N: You could always put yourself forward – only joking – well, I don’t know. I hear good things about young Cameron in Witney – well-connected you know and Osborne up in Cheshire, another possible but they’ve barely served their time. Davis is the man and he’ll look and sound so much more convincing against Brown.

D: Perhaps but I’m worried about the liberals – they’re working my seat hard and I’m only 3,000 ahead.

N: Look, old chap – no one in their right mind is going to think of that Scots drunk as a potential Prime Minister. He’s played the anti-war card well, no question, but he’s a lightweight. Why do you think he’s called “Chatshow Charlie”? In any way, most of his lot will go in with Labour – no, we need someone who will get the real Tory voters back, the ones who’ve sat on their hands or buggered off to UKIP since ’97. David Davis can do that.

D: I’m more worried about the present – Blair will go to the country next year.

N: Yes, but there’s a lot of disillusionment and anger out there – people will come back to us, slowly at first, but once Brown takes over, we’ll get them in droves.

D: I hope we get enough of them back in time. A lot of people aren’t happy with Iraq in my constituency and every time Iain shoves his head further up George Bush’s backside, the worse it is for me.

N: Look, we’re all concerned but we have to see it through. Once we get Saddam, it’ll quieten down and everyone will see Iain was right and the voters will move away from Charlie and back to us.

D: I really hope you’re right. I think my seat is one of the liberals “target lists”.

N: Don’t worry, old bean. We’ll see off Charlie as we did the two Davids in ’87. Then it’ll be just us and Labour – without Blair, Labour are a ragtag and bobtail. Iain will have done his bit – the ’22 will tell him to step aside, he’ll endorse Davis and we’ll take the fight to Brown. We’ve done the right thing. Ditching Iain now would have been a disaster.

D: We’ll see – thanks for the drink, Norman.
 
Now this I didn't see coming, but of course! An IDS-survives TL! What a fantastic idea, the butterflies are endless. I'm shaking with excitement. Keep it coming, sir!
 

AndyC

Donor
Ooh. A very interesting PoD.

Will the Tories be smashed under IDS? Will he do as well as or better than Howard? Will there be more rumbles prior to the election? Will Champagne Charlie break through?

Subscribed.
 
Thanks..

Thanks for the encouraging words all, appreciated as always.

Yes, the POD is that IDS survives the "Confidence Vote" on October 28th 2003. He lost by 90 to 75 after another tepid performance but my research shows a number of wavering MPs had been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt if he had put up a good performance in front of the 1922 Committee.

The POD is that he does and with some of the "Norman" sentiments on offer, he survives by 90 to 75 - far from convincing but with an election less than two years away, too late to change horses.

Part 2 later in the week.
 

Thande

Donor
I wonder how IDS would fight an election. His ideas on reforming welfare since the current government got in have been interesting and sometimes unorthodox for the Tories. Howard of course mostly fought the 2005 election on immigration issues, but I wonder if IDS will do the same.
 
Bremner's old series is on 4od on YouTube, if it helps.

True, IDS is doing some interesting things with welfare but keep in mind this was after he spent his entire time in the wilderness setting up a think tank and studying the issue of social welfare in depth. As far as I recall he didn't show much interest in the area before he lost the leadership beyond the usual Tory stance on such issues.

Very interesting. If its anywhere near as good as FWAD, then we're in for a good ride.
 
Update Time...

The Daily Telegraph – December 19th 2003
A Time for Reflection


As Christmas approaches and with Westminster emptying in advance of the holidays, it is time for politicians of all sides to reflect on the year past and consider the year ahead.

Even the loyalist of Mr Iain Duncan-Smith’s friends would find it difficult to disavow the contention that it has been a difficult year for the Conservative Party leader. However, this paper considers there is much about which Mr Duncan-Smith can feel positive.

On Iraq, the pre-eminent issue of the year, Mr Duncan-Smith has eschewed the opportunism of others and has shown great courage and wisdom in supporting the military action. Doubtless, there has been some short-term damage from those attracted by the siren calls of appeasement from Mr Charles Kennedy and others but in the longer-term and here the signs are favourable, a peaceful and stable Iraq will stand as a vindication of the strategy of both London and Washington and as this paper has supported Mr Blair on Iraq, despite our misgivings about the Prime Minister and the Government on many other issues, so we recognise the pivotal role of Mr Duncan-Smith and the Conservatives in ensuring political strength behind the military campaign.

Indeed, the recent capture of Saddam Hussein vindicates much of what was argued in the spring and while much still needs to be done to undo the years of Ba’athist tyranny and restore stable and democratic institutions, there is room for cautious optimism.

Domestically, it has been a challenging year for Mr Duncan-Smith. The local elections in England and those to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in May brought only modest progress and were in many respects disappointing. At 35%, the share of the vote achieved by the Conservatives was unremarkable and well below where this paper considers the Party needs to be in order to mount a serious challenge at the next General Election which is probably less than eighteen months away.

It is true that over 560 local council seats in England were gained by the Conservatives but the Liberal Democrats made substantial headway and were all too often the beneficiaries of Labour weakness. The Conservatives continue to hover around 30% in most opinion polls which must also be a source of concern. That said, signs of disintegration within the Blair Government are starting to show and while Mr Duncan-Smith may lack the oratorical gimmickry of the Prime Minister, that may be no bad thing for an electorate seeking a Prime Minister concerned with substance rather than spin.

Unfortunately, a poor performance at the Party Conference and a speech best forgotten, followed by a disappointing third place in what was always going to be a difficult by-election in unpromising territory provoked a crisis of confidence in the Parliamentary Party. To his credit, Mr Duncan-Smith saved his best for the moment of crisis producing a bravura performance which trumped his critics and ensured his survival. Yet the fact that 40% of the Parliamentary party supported the Confidence motion should give Mr Duncan-Smith pause for reflection.

Only the most wildly optimistic consider the possibility of forming a majority Government after the next General Election as belonging anywhere other than in the realm of absurdity but Mr Duncan-Smith must also realise status quo is not an option. The Party must be seen to progress both in terms of vote share and numbers of seats and at the moment such progress seems limited at best. It is not for this paper to set Mr Duncan-Smith to set a target but it is clear that the Conservative Party must be seen as a viable alternative Government after the next election and that winning an overall majority must be viewed as a credible scenario at an election to be held in 2009 or 2010.

Even if Mr Duncan-Smith does not himself lead the Party to that Promised Land, he must make sure it is well on the road to that destination. At present, the road has not been found and the journey not yet started. It is Mr Duncan-Smith’s task in 2004 to prepare the Party for the journey.

That much should give him plenty on which to reflect over the coming festive period.
 
Hmmm, could we be seeing the Liberals overtaking the Tories at the next election?

The Red

Quite possibly in votes. In seats would be a hell of a lot harder given the electoral system and the fact both old parties have a core of voters who will turn out for them just about regardless of what they do and who they put up.

Steve
 
Well, this looks very interesting. I do wonder how the 2005 (Alt) election will pan out. (Assuming it is 2005 - You never know!)
 
The Red

Quite possibly in votes. In seats would be a hell of a lot harder given the electoral system and the fact both old parties have a core of voters who will turn out for them just about regardless of what they do and who they put up.

Steve

Foundation of the Liberal Party: 1856
Foundation of the Conservative Party: 1834
Foundation of the Labour Party: 1900

Let's leave Clegg's spin about 'old parties' back in the debate archives where it belongs.

On topic, I'm having difficulty seeing where this is going. In a good way. FWoaD had a pattern you could see emerging whereas this has so many wildcards in play that it's really quite unclear. The butterflies of an IDS-led Tory campaign in 2005 could have an effect on the Blair/Brown battles post '05 (appropriately back in the new today), for example. Keep it coming, you captured the Torygraph perfectly.
 
Comments...

To be fair, Meadow, I'm only two updates in so forgive me if I don't show my whole hand at this time :)

There will be an election in 2005 - no reason for there not to be. As to how British politics develops after the election, well, that's the point of the TL really. I have some ideas and things won't turn out as many on here might suspect in the medium and long term. In the short-term, there won't be too many surprises I suspect.

I don't intend to butterfly away any world events because, frankly, a different Tory leader makes no difference so George W Bush will be re-elected in 2004 and Obama will win in 2008 etc, etc.

Update 3 - taking in the 2004 local and Euro elections - to come on Monday

Then we may have the "Norman & David Show" which will be a regular feature.
 
The Red

Quite possibly in votes. In seats would be a hell of a lot harder given the electoral system and the fact both old parties have a core of voters who will turn out for them just about regardless of what they do and who they put up.

Steve

Oh I agree, in fact it would need more than a 10 point lead for the Liberals to have overtaken the Conservatives in terms of seats. Coming third would certainly be jarring for the Tories, they wouldn't just still be on square one, they would have stepped off the board. Also Kennedy's aim, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't to become the official opposition as such but to become the effective opposition by robbing the Conservatives of their talent and outdoing them in parliament, they could achieve this if the Tories continue to stumble on with IDS.
 
Last edited:
Oh I agree, in fact it would more than a 10 point lead fro the Liberals to have overtaken the Conservatives in terms of seats. Coming third would certainly be jarring for the Tories, they wouldn't just still be on square on, they would stepped off the board. Also Kennedy's aim, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't to become the official opposition as such but to become the effective opposition by robbing the Conservatives of their talent and outdoing them in parliament, they achieve this if the Tories continue to stumble on with IDS.

Indeed, the decapitation strategy, which failed utterly in OTL (well, unless Tim Collins was a target).

Ah, the 2004 local elections and the joys of postal votes, I remember it well.
 
Foundation of the Liberal Party: 1856
Foundation of the Conservative Party: 1834
Foundation of the Labour Party: 1900

Let's leave Clegg's spin about 'old parties' back in the debate archives where it belongs.

On topic, I'm having difficulty seeing where this is going. In a good way. FWoaD had a pattern you could see emerging whereas this has so many wildcards in play that it's really quite unclear. The butterflies of an IDS-led Tory campaign in 2005 could have an effect on the Blair/Brown battles post '05 (appropriately back in the new today), for example. Keep it coming, you captured the Torygraph perfectly.

Meadow

Being a bit flexible with the meanings there. The Liberals might have kind of formed in 1856 but the SDLP are technically a new party. More importantly while the other two parties have been swapping power for nearly a century and have grown more intent on maintaining it the SDLP has been isolated so has more new ideas. [Albeit not as many as I would have liked and as the current coalition shows too much idealogical dead wood still:mad:].

Anyway, would rather not get bogged down in political debate here and distracting from the TL.

Steve
 
Top