"The Commonwealth of Britain" - Republican UK Wikibox TL
- Thread starter powerab
- Start date
Labour Presidential Primary Part 2
This was Miliband's second go at running for President after his failed bid in 2009
"Older, wiser and with something to prove, a new Miliband could be that credible and formidable voice our movement needs. On the party’s left, the story of Ed’s 2009 bid is read as one of wasted potential. No less than Owen Jones described Miliband as “a man who had the right diagnosis of Britain’s broken social order. A man torn between the radicalism of his father and his time as a New Labour apparatchik”. Few people get a chance to reshape their own legacy. If Ed won, that would be a reason to be cheerful indeed. If 2013 Ed wants to win where 2009 Ed failed he'll need to learn from his past mistakes. He's the front-runner now and like Gordon before him all the knives are pointed at his back." - Ed Miliband has transformed since 2009, Mohammad Zaheer, The Independent (2013)
Due to his name recognition and base of support Ed Miliband quickly garnered a decent but not insurmountable lead of around 6 points to his nearest competitors. In the early days of the primary a battle quickly emerged between Burnham, Cooper and Umunna as to who would become Miliband’s greatest rival, and it was in the battles between these campaigns that fighting became particularly fierce. In one particularly nasty row between the Umunna and Burnham camps, Umunna compared Burnham to a “petulant child” “screaming at the electorate rather than trying to meet them where they’re at”. Umunna quickly built his brand as a “straight shooter”, attacking the Balls Government as much as he did Michael Howard, whilst it won him no favours amongst party elites, the near constant press coverage boosted him in the polls.
Umunna’s early surge quickly squeezed the vote of the other traditionally Blairite candidates, polling had Hunt on just 6%, Kendall on 3% and Reeves on just 2%, the three of them all struggling to make a name for themselves in the shadow of the slick, media friendly Umunna. After just a few weeks in the campaign Rachel Reeves announced she was withdrawing, citing a lack of funds, narrowing the field down to just seven.
Dan Jarvis also had a strong early game for a virtually unknown candidate, out-passing established Senators like Hunt and Kendall, Jarvis was breathing down the neck of the “middle three” as the press dubbed them. Jarvis’ background and story was popular amongst low-information Labour supporters. Jarvis used his pundit credentials to make regular appearances on shows like “Good Morning Britain” and he would tour Midlands and Yorkshire towns in small American style “town halls”.
Jarvis at a "Town Hall" in Sheffield
Despite this the advantage remained with Miliband, he quickly received high profile backing from the GMB and Unison. He also received endorsements from senior Labour politicians such as Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan and Senator Hilary Benn, with a well-financed campaign and a strong name recognition Miliband still remained the bookies favourite and the candidate to beat, polling at 29%.
It was in this atmosphere that the seven remaining candidates made their way to Bradford Cathedral for the Primary Debate. Bradford was an interesting city to hold the debates. In the 2009 Howard wave, Labour had lost the Mayoralty to the Tory Philip Davies, losing the outer wards of the city, whilst the inner wards turned to the far-left Respect, netting them 7 seats on the City Council, it was a strong example of the dilemma facing Labour, turn right and lose the inner cities, turn left and lose the countryside.
Yvette Cooper was chosen to speak first. The debate was a big moment for Cooper, she had to prove she was interesting, and more importantly human, her detractors often criticised her for talking in academic policy terms rather than telling a convincing story. She opened by telling a story of how 20 years ago she had been forced to rely on benefits after falling ill. Aged 24 she had developed chronic fatigue syndrome and had been forced to take a year out of work to recover, commenting; “I was desperate to get back to work; I hated every minute of it. That is why we need to challenge this president's rhetoric at every turn, when he talks about benefit scroungers he talks about people who need just a little help to get by. I don’t believe we need to choose between our head or our heart. We can stand up for people and we can win elections but only as one united party.” Cooper’s speech was well received and she had a strong night overall, she managed to cut through her robotic image to present her more human side. Her rhetoric around uniting head and heart and bringing together won her support among many Labour supporters.
“We learned several things from last night’s first major debate. Almost all of them are bad for the Labour party. The winner – if you set aside Michael Howard – was Yvette Cooper. She is, as many people suspected, the most solid performer of all the candidates on the ballot. Calm, professional, polished. Yvette is the quintessential safe pair of hands. Too safe. Each position she adopts is calculated to place herself in a position of perfect equilibrium. “Tea or coffee, Yvette?” “Well, I love tea. But it would be a serious mistake to ignore the importance of coffee." She is also in danger of diluting her greatest strength, which is her strength. There is an inner steel in Yvette Cooper, but for some reason she’s trying to mask it. She is trying to humanise herself, and instead she is mumsifying herself. She’s been told to smile a lot, but that means she’s adopting Gordon Brown’s disconcerting habit of grinning at random, and inappropriate, moments.” - Who won the Labour Primary Debate?, Dan Hodges, The Telegraph (2013)
The other standout performance of the debate was Colonel Dan Jarvis. Jarvis had the benefit of never holding elected office, thus he had little in the way of a record to attack. Jarvis too engaged in “straight talking” politics, Jarvis harked to the various northern small towns he had visited in his town halls. In an answer to a question on workers rights he gave an emotional speech “Employment rights should never be for sale. These were hard fought for, over many years, and today we should seek to protect them for future generations. Together we remember those who have been killed, made ill, or injured by their own or someone else's work. And we renew our commitment to demanding safe and healthy work for all. Let us remember the dead. And fight for the living.”
Jarvis gained his most senior endorser in Business Secretary John Healey
Jarvis’ story was compelling, a working class outsider who had fought for his country and was now running for office. His tone was unashamedly blue collar and populist. Jarvis’ main aim in the debate was to prove he was a loyal Labour man, and he accomplished this in spades. He spoke of his parent’s background as Labour activists and his loyal support for the trade union movement.
On the other end of the spectrum perhaps the biggest loser of the debate was Senator Liz Kendall, already struggling to be seen amongst the flashier Umunna and Hunt. Kendall received boos from the audience when she seemingly tried to outflank Howard on immigration. “I am angry about people trying to get into this country, scrambling onto lorries in Calais. If you come here from Europe, you should come to work and not claim benefits. You should respect the community you live in and our culture. For people outside Europe we need a strict points-based system like they have in Australia.” Kendall’s hawkish attitudes on immigration didn’t play well in the diverse audience of Bradford Labour supporters.
"The reasons why we lost aren’t complicated. They’re simple. We decided that the British public had shifted to the left because we wished it to be so. We never dealt with the central economic case of our opponents about where we fell short. We didn’t have answers to the big questions people were asking about THEIR future and that of our country – on jobs, immigration or the public finances. We didn’t lose because of Gordon's personality. We lost because of our politics. We need to meet people where they are at, not where they would like to be." - Liz Kendall, Labour Primary Debate (2013)
Liz Kendall did not have a good night at the debate
The most embarrassing part of the debate was when Kendall claimed that Howard had a policy of a legally mandated budget surplus, when she was informed this was untrue by the debate’s moderator, John Pienaar, she doubled down and criticised Pienaar for calling her out, languishing at just 5% in the polls Kendall couldn’t afford a bad debate performance and it spelled bad news for her campaign.
Ed Miliband too struggled in the debate, whilst he didn’t have any major gaffs like Kendall he had a large target on his back, coming under fire from all sides he struggled to respond. Miliband’s notes for the debate had been leaked to the media hours before in an embarrassing display. Ed’s aides knew his main challenge was his perceived “softness” so Miliband tried to be aggressive in the debate but many of the attacks fell flat. Miliband was mocked by many in the press for referring to himself as a “warrior”. Shortly after the debate a parody Twitter account name “tough guy Ed” appeared, the account challenging Russian President Mendev to “throw down”.
The other three candidates made very little impact, Burnham failed to differentiate himself from Miliband and spoke the least out of the three, whilst Hunt and Umunna failed to score any memorable lines. As the dust settled on the debate snap polls showed Yvette Cooper as the winner of the debate with 29% of respondents saying she was the most convincing, followed by Jarvis on 25%, Hunt on 20%, Umunna on 11%, Burnham on 7%, Miliband with 6% and Kendall on just 3%.
After an embarrassing debate Kendall withdrew and threw her weight behind Umunna. Miliband had taken a beating from the debate, whilst still in the lead his polling fell to 27%, followed by Umunna followed with 21%, Burnham with 17%, Cooper on 15%, Jarvis polling at 12%, and Hunt was at the bottom of the pack at 6%
“Liz Kendall has said she is no longer running for President, instead giving her backing to Chuka Umunna. In a speech in her home town of Leicester, Ms Kendall said Mr Umunna would be able to confront the "big challenges" facing Labour. Responding to his endorsement, Mr Umunna said his fellow Senator was "a big talent" and he was "delighted" to have his support. In his speech, Mr Hunt also criticised Ed Miliband's "timid" approach to the election. Mr Miliband has been accused of pursuing a 35% strategy - focusing on core Labour voters and disaffected Lib Dems. Ms Kendall said Labour needed a "100% strategy" that was "broad-based" and "forward-looking". She urged the party not to "turn inwards". She suggested that what was needed was a return to the combination of economic discipline and social renewal. "Not since 1983 have we been so out of step with the prevailing mood of the nation," she told the rally.” - Liz Kendall backs Chuka Umunna for President, BBC News (2013)
Umunna was quickly consolidating the modernisers behind his campaign
Critically assess the importance of TV debates in Presidential Primaries (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)
Cue complaints about the increasing Americanisation of British politics, which is probably much worse ITTL than it ever was IOTL. 
Closer Look, BBC World at One Interview with Yvette Cooper
Yvette Cooper on her immigration policy (BBC Radio 4 Interview)
By Shaun Ley
SL - Now I am delighted to have with me in the studio Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper one of the six Labour candidates running to be President of the Commonwealth. Secretary Cooper thank you for joining us.
YC - Thank you for having me Shaun
SL - Now I think the most obvious question, of the hundreds of Labour MPs, Senators, Cabinet Members, Premiers, why are you best placed to be President?
YC - Well I think the main thing our country needs is experience. Whoever is President will be dealing with big issues from day one. I’ve spent several years as a regional Premiere, and of course I’ve spent the last couple years as Foreign Secretary dealing with the issues our country faces head on.
SL - Yes you have quite an impressive resume Secretary Cooper, you’d have thought an incumbent Foreign Secretary would be storming ahead of the pack but instead you’re currently fourth in the polls and around twelve points behind Ed Miliband, the front-runner. Why is that?
YC - Well election day is still several weeks away, and what I’m doing is travelling up and down this country talking to Labour supporters to try and show them why I am the best choice.
SL - That’s all well and good Secretary Cooper but again you hold a great office of state. I understand Colonel Jarvis or Senator Hunt having to put the work in to get their name out there, but people should really know who you are and what you stand for. Isn’t the truth that voters just don’t like you?
YC - No I think that’s unfair, I think when you’ve been in politics as long as I have you tend to develop some baggage, and during primaries we often see minor candidates with brief surges or peaks of interest. But what we in the Labour Party had to be asking ourselves who is best placed to beat Michael Howard? This isn’t the time for an amateur. Howard is too dangerous for the party to be messing around. Poll after poll has shown I’m the best placed to beat Howard and that should really be our priority .
SL - Well my question to you Secretary Cooper then is why aren’t you winning? A sitting Foreign Secretary coming fourth, it's a bit embarrassing isn’t it?
YC - Well I think with some of the candidates there is a slight case of telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. That we can win this election just by turning out our own base and picking up a couple Greens.
SL - You mean Senator Miliband?
YC - Well I’m not naming names but I think to win this election we need to reach out to people we might not necessarily agree with, Conservative voters, UKIP voters
SL - BNP voters?
YC - Well I think the hatred espoused by the BNP and BDP to be absolutely vile, but a lot of their voters are former Labour supporters, yes I can think we can win them back.
SL - How do you intend to win them back? With points-based immigration? That didn’t go well for Liz Kendall.
YC - Well controls and limits are important. I recognise we should have transitional controls in place for Eastern Europe. And the last Labour Government was slow to bring in the Australian style points based system. As a result immigration – and particularly low skilled immigration – is too high, and it is right to bring it down.
SL - Secretary Cooper, thank you very much.
- BBC Radio 4, 18th October 2013
Labour Presidential Primary, Part 3
Cooper tried to build on her debate momentum by making as many campaign stops as possible
“It wasn't supposed to be this way. By now, Yvette Cooper was supposed to the Prime Minister, serving under her mentor – the President Gordon Brown. In 2011, after her political mentor Gordon Brown was defeated, Ms Cooper stood aside to let Mr Balls stand for the Labour leadership. Many analysts thought Labour's power couple had chosen the wrong person, with Rosie Winterton as the only woman on the ballot paper. But with Mr Balls firmly in Downing Street, some believe Ms Cooper's time has come. The mother of three has a strong chance to become Labour's nominee. It has been a long time coming for the 42-year-old Foreign Secretary. As a teenager she would reportedly tell anyone who would listen at her comprehensive that she wanted to be prime minister.” - The Rise of Yvette Cooper, Tom McTague, Daily Mail (2013)
As the primary race moved into its final stretch Yvette Cooper’s campaign tried to capitalise on the momentum of the TV debates, performing a blitz of TV and print appearances. She also received several high profile endorsements including Southwark Mayor Harriet Harman, Former Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan, and the most important endorsement from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown who gave a barnstorming speech for her in the Yorkshire city of Wakefield, with both the Burnham and Hunt campaigns fading and Jarvis too far behind to mount a serious challenge, the primary was quickly shifting into a three-way race.
The debate has thinned the field out somewhat
Jarvis too hoped to gain some ground from his debate, donors came flooding into his campaign for the final stretch and he received the endorsement of former Yorkshire Premier David Blunkett. Jarvis was a novelty being the first “non-politician” to run for elected office, and focus groups showed Jarvis as exceptionaly popular, with more and more ordinary people recognising who he was.
Meanwhile the Andy Burnham campaign, once a front runner, was cratering. A boring performance at the debate saw him haemorrhaging votes to Ed Miliband, his problem would be further compounded when in a major gaffe he said a woman could be President “when the time is right.” Andy Burnham was accused of being “out of touch”, “very tired” or “very sexist” after appearing to suggest the time was not right for a woman President. Asked in a BBC Radio 5 debate if there should be a female President, he responded: “When the time is right.” After gasps from some members of the studio audience, the candidate tried to clarify his position. “When the right candidate comes forward. It could be now, it could be in the future. Who knows?”
The clumsy remarks were attacked by the North East's Senate President Helen Goodman, who backed Yvette Cooper for the top job. She said: “Andy must be a) out of touch, b) very tired or else c) very sexist. To be fair, on balance it is either a or b.” Fellow Cooper supporter Diana Johnson MP said: “What on earth does Andy mean? Is he suggesting that even now, in 2013, the Labour Party isn't ready for a woman nominee? Or that the country isn’t ready? Or that women aren’t ready? After 100 years of campaigning for women’s equality are we saying we don’t think a woman can do the top job?”
Burnham's gaffe caused his campaign to leak voters to Yvette Cooper
“I want to start with leadership. Leadership is about risks and difficult decisions. It is about those lonely moments when you have to peer deep into your soul. I'm running for the nomination, it is hard for my family, but Labour needs to turn the page and I am the best person to do it. I faced a decision about whether to stand up to Rupert Murdoch. It wasn’t the way things had been done in the past, but it was the right thing to do so I did it. And together we faced them down. And then I faced an even bigger decision about whether the country should go to war. The biggest decision any Senator faces, the biggest decision any Senate faces, the biggest decision any party faces. All of us were horrified by the appalling chemical weapons attacks in Syria. But when I stood on the stage four years ago, running for President the first time, I said we would learn the lessons of Iraq. It would have been a rush to war, it wasn’t the right thing for our country. So I said no. It was the right thing to do.” - Ed Miliband Rally Speech in Bristol (2013)
Ed Miliband also struggled in the last few weeks, whilst most polls showed him as the front-runner the gap between him, Cooper and Umunna was becoming narrower and narrower. With some pundits commenting the electorate had reached “peak Miliband”. Miliband was facing increasing scrutiny from both the media and his Labour opponents on his ambitious spending plans, especially when faced with the “iron clad” discipline of Balls and Cable.
In an interview with Channel 4, Miliband stumbled and said he did not know how long it would take to get borrowing down but suggested "my point is this, over a six-year period we will be more effective at getting borrowing down over the medium term". Miliband’s economic policy seemed muddled and confused, moving from radical social democracy to austerity-lite seemingly on a dime. Labour List, a sympathetic Labour blog, suggested Miliband needed to have the courage of his convictions. Blairite MPs said if he was not prepared to embrace the political logic of his Keynesian position he needed to abandon it.
Despite his background as an economics professor, Miliband struggled to articulate his vision for the country's finances
At the same time on the Blairite wing of the party, the Hunt campaign was stagnating, with the Blairites solidly behind Umunna there wasn’t any market for an older whiter posher Blairite with a less convincing story, with David Miliband and Tony Blair falling in behind Umunna there was very little hope for Hunt’s campaign to break through, whilst advisers had pushed him to drop out, Hunt was determined to fight until the end.
“Given his ethnicity (his late father was Nigerian), he's been spoken of as 'Britain's Barack Obama'. Umunna is irritated by the label. 'It's never been something I've encouraged,' he has said. 'I want people to look at me as me, not through the prism of someone else's personality.' But while some who attach the Obama tag do so out of laziness, others see in Umunna something that gives the likeness a deeper resonance. He's got that same relaxed charm and lucidity; the easy, unfazed way of speaking that marks out a natural communicator. Indeed, he's been likened to Tony Blair as someone who seems to have a ready empathy with anyone he meets - be it a captain of industry or a teenage hoodie. There's a coolness, a self-assurance about Umunna that is quite exceptional, which doesn't spill over into arrogance. Nonetheless, he has a level gaze and a considered manner that can be disconcerting. He is witty. He talks the talk.” - Chuka Umunna, Chris Blackhurst, Management Today (2013)
The Umunna camp was also having problems, after his meteoric rise in the first few weeks of the campaign, Umunna had seemingly plateaued, after ruthlessly consolidating the right of the party he struggled to win over voters from outside his faction. Many supporters, especially union members, increasingly referred to Umunna as “slimy” or “arrogant” in focus groups, with Cooper fast catching up to him Umunna needed one big push to win the nomination.
It was under this backdrop that Labour supporters made their way to Eastbourne to hear the announcement of the winner. Last minute polls were jittery with some showing Miliband the winner, some Cooper and some Umunna. As NEC Chair Angela Eagle rose to announce the results, her declaration would decide the fate of the Labour Party, and the future of the Commonwealth.
As the preferences were tallied and lower tier candidates eliminated, the picture became clearer and clearer. Ed Miliband had achieved a narrow victory, it would be the environmentally conscious Senator who would lead the party to Buckingham. “Professor Ed” was now the British left’s best hope.
“Ed Miliband has hit out at the Daily Mail over an article it ran calling his father, Ralph, "the man who hated Britain" in his victory speech in Eastbourne. The Labour nominee said he was "not prepared to allow his [father's] good name to be denigrated in this way" after the article in the newspaper. He expressed his deep anger about the piece and reveal that the newspaper had agreed to publish a response from him this week. The essay examined the politics of the academic, adding "the answer should disturb everyone who loves this country". The article states: "As for the country that gave him and his family protection, Miliband wrote: 'The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are the most nationalist people in the world … you sometimes want them almost to lose [the war] to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the continent … To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation'. "This adolescent distaste for the British character didn't stop him spending the rest of his life here." - Ed Miliband hits out at Daily Mail over article about his father, Patrick Wintour, The Guardian (2013)
Define “Milibandism” (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)
Still waiting for an ill-advised bacon sarnie photo op to rear its head ATL... loving the TL
Conservative Presidential Primary, Part 1
A Mail online graphic from an article alleging Cameron was days away from launching a Presidential bid
"Senior Tory Bernard Jenkin has dismissed the idea that Michael Howard could face a serious primary challenge. Speaking earlier to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said: "It is for the birds. The idea that changing the nominee is another quick fix - we must avoid the idea there is some kind of silver bullet to get us out of the hole we are in. What polls show is there is no such thing as the centre ground, there is no great pile of voters in the middle to be harvested by politicians. What people are looking for are people to tell the truth. Michael is that truth talker, Michael is the one to lead us into the next election. A primary challenge would look conniving, childish and frankly cynical." - Backbencher dismisses Cameron leadership challenge, ITV News (2013)
As the Labour Primary raged, in the blue camp allies of President Howard were desperate to avoid a primary challenge. High profile moderates including Senator Greening and Secretary Hunt were threatened and given lavish promises in equal measure. Howard-backing Senator Ian Duncan Smith commented the party had “descended into some kind of cold war”. Team Howard knew a challenge was coming, but they knew not who from or when the first volley would be fired.
As it turns out the first volley would be fired in Oxford. On a cold late-October in Radcliffe square, surrounded by supporters and the nation's press, the city’s mayor, 45 year old David Cameron ascended on stage to give his speech and announce his candidacy. Cameron’s speech had an optimistic, progressive tone. He talked about helping to achieve the country’s “full potential” he talked about the “vigour” of the British people. Finally he spoke of the “tough decisions” leadership required.
Cameron had hinted at as Presidential bid on LBC
At this point Cameron turned his guns firmly on Howard. It was not right, Cameron said that a 73 year old would be seeking an unprecedented third term, rather than standing aside and letting new blood take over. It was not right that a Conservative President with an approval rating in the 20s would be so arrogant as to try and cling to office at the risk of letting a radical Labour President in. Finally it was not right that said President engaged in divisive rhetoric on everything from Europe to the Middle East.
It was with that Mayor David Cameron announced his bid to become President of the Commonwealth of Britain. Cameron’s speech would mark the first challenge to an incumbent President in a decade, since Livingstone’s challenge in 2003. The famously loyal and disciplined Conservative party was breaking out into civil war, a great gift for its political opponents and a great humiliation for President Howard.
Cameron’s announcement was met by mixed responses in the press. Many, especially those to the right of the political spectrum, saw Cameron’s bid as a cynical ploy, with his strings being pulled by Clarke and Osborne. It was yet another example of the all-encompassing liberal europhillic elite trying to turf out a loyal and patriotic President.Cameron was also mocked for being a political nobody, the Mayor of one of Britain's smallest cities with just 150,000 people. How could someone with so little experience hope to become Britain’s President?
“In the midst of the present challenges we should plan for the future. We must look at what the world will look like when the difficulties in the Commonwealth have been overcome. The biggest danger to the Conservative Party comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history the Conservatives Party has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point. And my point is this. More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the Commonwealth. More of the same will not see the Commonwealth keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the Commonwealth any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same: less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs. And that will make our country weaker, not stronger. That is why we need fundamental, far-reaching change. So let me set out my vision for a new Commonwealth, fit for the 21st century.” - David Cameron announcement speech (2013)
Slick and TV-savvy Cameron knew he was an unknown, thus first impressions would be crucial
On the flip side pundits in the centre-right welcomed Cameron’s intervention. Howard was a politician for a different generation, he would be nearly 80 by the end of his third term and his politics on issues from euro to social freedoms were out of step with the majority of the public. Many Tory elites believe something had to be done about Howard and were weary of a young Ed Miliband or Chuka Umunna running circles around him on the debate stage. Howard received endorsements from the Economist and the Financial Times and saw favourable coverage in many other papers.
Cameron quickly rallied a team behind him, appointing rising star MP Sam Giymah as his campaign’s chair. He also raised a significant war chest, many big Tory donors including the millionaire Timothy Sainsbury gave generous donations to the Cameron campaign. Whilst openly Osborne kept the Cameron campaign at a distance, pledging to “let the debate play out on both sides”, behind the scenes Osborne was shuttling his deep-pocketed supporters to his old school friend.
“And look at the Tories. Floundering into civil war, a President unable to hold his own party together. It's a mess, Micheal Howard and George Osborne boast about fixing the economy, but ordinary people in Britain don’t feel it. Yet it’s no surprise that they are so out of touch with ordinary people. The supporters of the Tory Party are dwindling; they are funded by cash from their friends in the City, bankers and hedge fund managers. They listen to their big donors, the corporate lobbyists, the richest and the most powerful. That’s why we say Michael Howard is not only out of touch with ordinary British families, he is always standing up for the wrong people. It’s the way the Tory Party operates. It’s in their DNA. The Labour Party is very different. We want to govern in the interests of all the people and not just a narrow elite. We are a One Nation Labour Party that aspires to be a One Nation Labour Government.” - Building a Mass Movement, Ed Miliband, New Statesman (2013)
Tory divisions were a gift to Labour
Now the cameras turned to Howard? How would he react? Would he head Cameron’s call for him to step down with dignity? Would he see the writing on the wall and prevent his party from falling into a damning primary, or would he hold fast to his record and his principles? As the press gathered at Buckingham for a press conference Howard summoned his closest friends and confidants to make a decision. Nicky Morgan, his former Chief of Staff turned Senator encouraged Howard to stand aside, but pledged loyalty if he chose not to, whilst another ally, Former Secretary Michael Gove urged him to fight on. Eventually Howard made his decision.
Howard’s speech focused on the concept of moving forward, he talked about his achievements as President, rescuing the Iran hostages, keeping hold of the European rebate and spearheading policy on organised crime. Howard spoke of the danger the country faced, from the “radical” politics of the traffic-light coalition to the encroaching “ever-closer union” of the EU.
As Howard's speech began to wrap up he finally arrived on the issue of Europe. Howard reiterated his desire to hold a referendum, he outlined his plan for a robust renegotiation and devolution of powers, and his will for the British people to have the final say. Howard stated he intended to see his presidency and his policy through, that he wouldn’t back down, that he would still seek a third term as President.
“Michael Howard has now been leader of the Commonwealth for longer than Tony Blair was. Doubts continue to be expressed about Howard's leadership. Howard has not shown much ability to set a policy or media narrative since he won his second term. Perhaps he is not trying to, or at least, not trying hard enough. On a more personal level, his own ratings are nothing to write home about and the scores for personality attributes should worry him. Having said all that, I expect Howard to lead the Conservatives into the election. For one thing, the Conservatives have no appetite for removing it's nominee. It would be difficult to justify a change; it's not obvious that Conservatives have an alternative nominee who'd do better or wants to try. But Howard being odds-on to stay until the election doesn’t mean there's no value elsewhere.” - Would stability be the prime concern if Howard went?, David Herdson, Political Betting (2013)
Unity became Howard's buzzword as he did the media rounds
“David Cameron was the best candidate the Osbornites had to take on Howard”, discuss (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)
Conservative Presidential Primary, Part 2
Osborne encouraged a TV debate between the candidates
"Cameron's campaign had placed considerable emphasis on the need for modernisation. Cameron called for a sharp break with Thatcherism. Instead, fostering a more tolerant and inclusive Conservatism. Moreover, he was emphatic that he would not be deflected — or deterred — from pursuing this approach. Cameron recognised the electorate would need to be persuaded that the transformation was genuine. Such persuasion was essential to regain the trust and support of former Conservative voters. Not since Clarke's campaign in 2003 had the Commonwealth Conservatives seen such a radical break from the Thatcherite consensus. Of course there is a debate to be had how far Cameron's radicalism was a ploy for media attention and how far he genuinely meant it." - David Cameron and the Crisis of British Conservatism, Peter Dorey, British Politics Journal (2014)
Team Cameron knew his biggest issue was name recognition, according to a YouGov poll only 31% of Commonwealth residents had heard of Cameron, compared to 98% who had heard of Howard. Thus the Cameron campaign began its media blitz with one deafening demand, a televised primary debate. A debate would be gold dust for the Cameron campaign, it would allow Cameron legitimacy to perform on equal footing to a sitting President. Cameron was charismatic and good on TV if he managed to secure a spot on that debate stage he would easily outshine the ageing Howard.
For the Howard campaign a TV debate was risky, if he avoided it he risked being seen as cowardly, the Labour campaign would seize on a President too afraid to face down his own party. On the other hand Howard knew all the benefits a TV debate would bring to Cameron. Thus team Howard divided itself into two camps. The first camp wanted a “shut up and go away” strategy, where Howard would pretend the primary wasn’t happening to rob Cameron of airtime and legitimacy, similar to the tactics operated by Tony Blair against Ken Livingstone in 2003. The second camp wanted to face Cameron down head on, to show the country it was Howard who ran the Tory party.
Howard didn't want to appear weak before the electorate
Howard’s hand would be played when Channel 4 had announced it would be producing a televised debate in Newcastle City Hall in Northumberland. The debate would be hosted by Michael Crick and would be happening with or without Howard, threatening to “empty chair” the incumbent President should he refuse to attend. Howard allies were furious, hitting out at a “cynical partisan ploy” by Channel 4, who was seen by many as the country’s most left wing major broadcaster.
Howard decided he could not be seen to be dodging his responsibilities as President, let alone his responsibilities to his party. Despite the pleading of many of his advisers Howard made up his mind, he would face down Cameron himself. In making his announcement Howard used his classical education and quoted the Roman General Sulla, who famously said “First, you must learn to pull an oar. Only then can you take the helm.” Howard would not be apologising for his age, nor would he run from a fight.
“People want to be the masters of their own destinies. That is why I came into politics. That is why I returned to front-line politics. And that is why we can win the next election. Two years ago, Labour came to power with high hopes and the public’s blessing. They promised that things could only get better. But Labour have let you down. Instead of the improvements they promised, they’ve given us seven years of tax, spend, borrow and waste. Britain is a great country, full of the most talented and energetic and ambitious people. We could and we should be doing so much better. We need a president that is united in his desire to give power back to people. A president that will listen to people. A president that will trust people. And a president that will serve people. That has always been our historic mission. Britain needs it now more than ever. The battle lines have been drawn. I am ready for the fight. I am ready to win. Here in Yorkshire And across Britain. And with your help I know we can do it.” - Howard’s Speech to the Yorkshire Conservative’s Conference in Bradford (2013)
A few days later, the Newcastle audience braved the protests outside to witness the Conservative’s TV debate. As the two men took their positions either side of the stage, the first question was the issue on everyone's mind. “What is more important, youth or experience?”
The debate's TV audience raised eyebrows by being overwhelmingly Caucasian
Howard’s answer was surprisingly conciliatory considering how enraged he had been at Cameron’s betrayal. He praised his “very talented challenger” but emphasised that experience was the most important role of any President. Any President on day one would have to take calls from Dimitry Mendev and Barack Obama. Any President would have to make tough calls on day one, like the call he took to stand up to the Ayatollah and rescue Britain’s hostage sailors. Howard argued those decisions required experience and a steady hand.
“Former Conservative Party leader John Major has announced his support for David Cameron in the Tory primary. John Major said Mr Cameron's knowledge of Europe and drive for a "fresh start" make him the best-placed candidate. "I have come to the conclusion that David Cameron is best-placed to lead our country into this exciting new future that we have in front of us. He knows as much if not more about Europe than any other MP and he’s the person who will give us a fresh start in this exciting future that lies before us." Mr Cameron has never held a cabinet post in Government and has only been Mayor of Oxford. When questioned over his lack of experience, Major said: “I don’t think the experience is important. He’s in tune with the majority of the people of our country." During the interview the former Conservative Party leader also indicated that he might have voted for Mr Osborne had he ran. He said despite his "high regard" for George Osborne, a Prime Minister challenging a sitting President would be "very difficult".” - David Cameron receives backing of John Major, May Bulman, the Independent (2013)
Cameron countered this by saying he too had taken tough decisions, having served in business and Government Departments. He argued the tough decision he made was challenging Howard in the first place, telling the Conservative Party what it needed to hear, not what it wanted to hear. By standing up to a sitting President, putting his career and reputation on the line, Cameron argued he had proven his mettle by simply appearing on stage.
Cameron had engaged in the age old Commonwealth tradition of publishing a book before running for President
Cameron tried to reform his platform to be more about youth, he spoke of the challenges the Conservative Party faced in the Commonwealth. Of the 14 years since its founding, the Conservatives had held Downing Street for just three of them. Cameron described Howard as an “anchor to the old ways” holding the party back preventing it from progressing. Cameron said he wanted to create a “new progressive Conservative Party” ready to take on the challenges of the day and to face down the Labour nominee.
As the debate continued the other thing Cameron emphasised was that whomever one the primary would then have to most likely face down either Ed Miliband or Chuka Umunna, both media-savvy men in their 40s and 30s. Cameron knew he had to prove himself in the debate to fuel his electability argument, with high-minded speeches that many argued were melodramatic compared to the sober Howard. Howard countered Cameron’s argument saying the biggest gift to Labour was Cameron’s challenge, an unstable primary just months away from an election.
As the debate wrapped up, most snap polls showed Cameron as the winner but only narrowly, Channel 4’s snap poll showed Cameron winning the debate with a lead of just 52% to Howard’s 48%. Whilst the debate hadn’t been a great break-through moment for Cameron, the fact it had even happened boosted his campaign. YouGov polls showed his recognition rate shooting up, no matter his performance Cameron had established himself as a clear contender and catapulted the primary into front page news.
“Some see him as the new Tony Blair. There are some intriguing similarities between David Cameron, and the former President. For as the Labour Party turned to a youthful figure to revive its fortunes in 1994, so the Conservatives are turning to Mr. Cameron to rally the party. A former public-relations executive, Cameron will face a formidable task to defeat rival Michael Howard. The Conservatives have ruled Britain for two-thirds of the 20th century. They have produced unforgettable leaders like Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. But in the 14 years since the Commonwealth, they have lost their way. They suffer from persistent infighting, regular electoral drubbings, and a lack of grand vision. The notion that Britain is a nation of conservative people has been banished. The hope for some is that Mr. Cameron will stop the rot. "He is fluent, articulate, and quick on his feet," says Bill Cash, a veteran Conservative. "Youth does count in his favour." - Conservatives' rising star, Rowena Mason, The Guardian (2013)
The media consensus agreed the debate had been a stalemate
How far do you agree with the following statement: “Youth is more important than experience in a President” (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)
Closer Look, New Statesman Article on a Progressive Alliance
Green Party holding talks on joint Presidential Candidate with SNP and Plaid Cymru
Top Green and SNP figures have let slip secrets around a possible joint Presidential bid, here's why it matters
By Anoosh Chakelian
Cast your mind back to 2003. Ken Livingstone had just lost the Labour Primaries to Tony Blair and he announced his plan to launch an anti-war independent Presidential bid, courting the support of the Greens, SNP and other minor anti-war parties. Of course this never happened, but with the Greens now firmly established in Parliament there is an opportunity for a left of Labour Presidential Candidate for the first time.
In a fringe meeting of the Green Party’s conference in Norwich, the party’s national chair Chris Luffingham disclosed he and other senior Greens had held discussions with senior SNP figures, including Alex Salmond’s Chief of Staff Geoff Aberdein on a joint Presidential candidate.
He said there was some common ground between the parties on issues such as Trident nuclear weapons and reversing the worst of austerity. Luffingham told the event with the combined resources of the parties an Alliance could be a “real threat” to the established order.
The Alliance has some strong supporters, Secretaries Bennett and Lucas both have strong relations with senior SNP and Plaid figures. Speaking in a Guardian interview, Lucas refused to confirm or deny such talks were taking place, but she welcomed the idea of a “true alternative” to the old politics.
However some in the Greens are less sure, Jason Kitcat MP, chair of the centrist “Green Liberal Caucus” has raised concerns around working with the nationalist parties, instead arguing for the Greens to remain an independent force. Another centrist Green, Yorkshire MP David Blackburn told the West Leeds’ Dispatch “we’re about breaking the old left-right order not picking a side, we’re not socialists, we’re not nationalists, we’re Greens.”
The issue of the coalition with Labour is also wedge issue, the SNP rails against Labour as much as the Conservatives with many grassroots members furious at the party for getting in bed with the Tories north of the wall. SNP MSP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh has called on the party not to “muddy it’s hands” supporting “one English Westminster President over another”.
Despite the objections of some, a joint ticket is popular amongst members of all three parties. According to party insiders, senior figures are in the process of drawing up a set of “joint principles” for candidates to sign up to. The candidates who do would then be submitted to a primary where registered supporters of all three parties could vote in. Whomever one this primary would be nominated by all the parties' MPs.
There is precedent for such an alliance. In the European Parliament the three parties cooperate as part of the Greens/European Free Alliance Grouping.
Since ruling himself out of a third go to become Premier of Scotland, many see Senator Alex Salmond as a front-runner to lead in such a primary. He’s a formidable campaigner and would be dominant amongst SNP supporters, although it's to be seen whether he would win over Green supporters. Other possible candidates could include Secretaries Bennett and Lucas from the Greens or Plaid’s Leanne Wood and Elin Jones.
There is still a great deal of work to be done before an alliance can be agreed, yet alone a candidate nominated, but a successful Progressive Alliance could tip the balance of next year’s Presidential race.
- New Statesman 26th November 2013
Last edited:
So I am currently doing a British republic timeline. I want to know your opinions on something. So the elections are divided into three parts - the election of 400 Members of the Commons (MCs), the election of 800 Senators and the election of a President. The presidential election is a alternative vote plus two situation, do you think that Nick Clegg, with Cleggmania going on, could win the presidency?
Hiya, it depends on the other party candidates tbh and their vote transfers. If Clegg makes it into the final round then yes hes got a pretty decent chance, if this is at the height of Cleggmania when the lib dems were out-polling Labour and the Tories then its certainly possible.
Conservative Presidential Primary, Part 3
Whilst losing in the general election polls, Howard had a clear lead in the Primary
“What should be more worrying for Labour are the underlying figures on Ed Miliband and on economic trust. People's preference for President goes hand-in-hand with their voting intention. With the governing party doing a little better on the President question as it is easier to look Presidential when you actually are President. In the last few months Labour's lead in the polls has inched up a bit, but Miliband's rating as best President hasn't. There is a similar but smaller gap on economic policy. There are all sorts of different ways that economic trust is asked. A straight question on which party people trust the most shows them neck-and-neck. Whereas questions asking if people trust Howard & Osborne more than Miliband & Balls shows a lead for Howard & Osborne.” -Somebody has to win, Anthony Wells, YouGov (2013)
As the campaign entered its final stretch polling still showed Howard with a clear lead, the short campaign matched with Cameron's lack of name recognition in preventing him from mounting a meaningful campaign. The TV debate was supposed to be his saving grace and whilst Cameron didn’t put in a bad performance, it wasn’t enough to ingratiate himself with Conservative supporters. Whispers of Osborne granting a last minute endorsement came to nothing, Osborne knew he’d lost his gamble and didn’t want to make a bad situation worse.
Historians would continue to debate whether the Cameron campaign could have been salvaged with a stronger candidate or better debate performance, or if the whole endeavour had been a mistake from the start. For many moderate Conservatives, Senator Justine Greening became the one who got away. As the last weeks of the campaign carried on Cameron tried every trick in the book to shift his dire polling, to no avail, he had started too late with too little.
Cameron and his wife Samantha great supporters in Edinburgh - he performed better than average amongst Scottish Tories and thus focused his attention their in the last few weeks
As Tory party supporters arrived in Leeds for the national conference discussion was not over whether Howard would win, but by how much, and how he would treat his vanquished foes. Many Howardites on the right wanted Howard to use his mandate to turn his guns on the moderates, to call for Osborne’s resignation and replace him with a loyalist eurosceptic. Others were eager for Howard to bring the party together, they were afraid a factional civil war would hand the keys to Buckingham over to Ed Miliband.
Conservative National Chairwoman Amanda Sater announced the results, she confirmed Howard had won by a near two-to-one majority winning nearly four million votes to Cameron’s two million. Cameron had rolled the dice and he had failed, for Osborne the result was a disaster, not only had he failed to supplant Howard but now he was entering into the next election against a resurgent Labour Party with half his own caucus baying for blood.
Howard began his victory speech by playing tribute to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who had died earlier in the year "She transformed the country and I think we're still benefiting enormously from the reforms that her government put in place." Whilst he received a standing ovation, in the audience Osborne was physically cringing, Howard broke the one Tory election rule: don’t mention Thatcher. He then paid tribute to Cameron, calling him a “very talented young man who’s time will yet come”.
"His tutor , Prof Vernon Bogdanor, describes Cameron as "one of the ablest" students he has taught. After gaining a first-class degree, he applied for a job in the Conservative Research Department. Conservative Central Office is reported to have received a call from an unnamed man at Buckingham Palace. The man said: "I understand you are to see David Cameron. I've tried everything I can to dissuade him from wasting his time on politics but I have failed. I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a remarkable young man." Mr Cameron says he did not know the call was being made or who made it, but it is sometimes held up by his opponents as an example of his gilded passage to the top. As a researcher, Mr Cameron was seen as hard-working and bright. He worked with future shadow home secretary David Davis on the team briefing John Major for Prime Minister's Questions. Other colleagues, in what became known as the "brat pack" were Steve Hilton, and future Defence Secretary Andrew Lansley." - The David Cameron Story, BBC News (2013)
Cameron had tried to capture some of Dan Jarvis' "Town Hall" charms but it wasn't very effective
Pleasantries out the way Howard moved to the meat of his speech, he started with economics; Howard gave dire warnings of the Commonwealth’s financial situation, warning of a “triple dip recession” if the coalition's “reckless spending” wasn’t curtailed. Despite the doom and gloom Howard struck an optimistic tone for a future Conservative government; “there is no challenge we can’t overcome, no dragon we can’t slay, no battle we can’t win. Together with new leadership we can get our deficit down, we can get crime under control, we can make ourselves a proud nation once again.”
Howard’s hour long speech contained everything from concerns around UKIP to praise of George Osborne but Howard’s thrust remained an old fashioned Thatcherite argument for stricter spending, tougher police and controls on immigration. It had won him two elections before and Howard was confident it could win him a third term. But many advisers were nervous, Howard didn’t have a recession or an unpopular war dragging down his opponent like had last time, he also had UKIP polling at 16% threatening his right flank, the 2014 election was anyone’s game.
“The most recent analysis (based on Electoral Commission data) by Hope Not Hate predicts some 400,000 may “drop off” the London register. Equal to 6.8 per cent of all voters in the capital. Inner city areas with high “churn” or turnover of population are disproportionately affected. In London, for example, Kensington and Chelsea is forecast to see 16 per cent fall off its register. In Hackney it’s a staggering 22 per cent, whilst in Ealing and Bromley it's just 2 per cent. In contested boroughs this could well be a game changer. Hope Not Hate predicts that in Scotland over 200,000 people are at risk of disappearing off the register. Glasgow projected to lose 13 per cent (60,000) and Edinburgh some 5 per cent (20,000). Inner city areas, especially those with a young and/or student populations and high levels of rented property, are most at risk. The problem is compounded by the fact that some 8 percent of electors are not registered at all.” - 9 Million Missing Voters, Report by Jane Thomas, Adam Smith Institute (2013)
Thatcher's ghost still watched over the conference events
With the primary settled now came the task of reunifying the Tory party, there were some rumours that Howard would replace his ageing VP Michael Ancram with a younger moderate like Cameron to unify the party, although this came to nothing. In the first meeting between Howard, Clarke and Osborne since the primary the three men hashed out a “combined arms” offensive against the Labour Party. It was agreed that Lynton Crosby, the controversial Australian-born political strategist, would serve as Howard’s campaign manager whilst Thea Rogers would coordinate the Parliamentary campaign.
The campaign decided on a softer, community based message with Osborne adopting the slogan “Together for Britain”. They hoped to emphasise Howard's credentials as a middle class grammar school boy to reinvent the Tories as the party of workers. Senior working-class Conservatives such as John Major and Ester McVey would feature at the head of the campaign, promoting a classless society. The party hoped to capitalise on the rift between the Government and the unions on workers rights, and the rift between Labour and its core voters on immigration, to portray the Tories as the true party of the working class.
BAME rising star Senator Helen Grant was chosen to close the conference. Grant had been raised by a single mum on a council estate, perfect to represent the new “workers” Conservative Party: "Imagine a young kid growing up in inner city London – a few miles from here. His mum and dad are working, but not very rich, trying to pay the bills. This young man was not particularly academic. He quit school at 16 and struggled to get on. So let me ask you something: what did the Conservative Party have to offer someone like that? I'll tell you. That young man's name is John Major, and the Conservative Party made him Prime Minister. His life is a symbol of our party. It shows whose side we are on."
"Not just fixing the mess we will inherit - but building something better. We've got a few months until that election. A few months until Britain makes a choice: move forward to something better or stick with something worse. If this party fights with all we have, then this country will make the right choice. Because we always have before. Whenever we've had the choice of giving in to some shabby compromise or pushing forward to something better we've said: this is Great Britain. The improbable hero of history. The country that doesn't give in, that doesn't give up. That knows there's no such thing as destiny - only our determination to succeed. So I look to our future and I'm confident. There are battles to fight but beyond this hall are the millions of hardworking people who renew the great in Great Britain every day. In the way they work and the way they give and raise their families. These are the people we have alongside us. Together we've made it this far Together we'll finish the job we've started. Together we'll build that land of opportunity." - Senator Helen Grant’s speech to the Conservative Party Conference (2013)
The closing speech was normally seen as a slot for the party's future leaders
To what extent was Howard’s re-branding of the Conservatives as a “worker’s party” successful? (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)