Walterp
Member
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
What did the Tories do to deserve the tag, awarded them by their own Party Chairman?
Few quote Theresa May in full:
"Yes, we've made progress, but let's not kid ourselves. There's a way to go before we can return to government. There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies, You know what some people call us: the nasty party."
In these irony-laden days one is apt to forget that the Conservatives not only lost an election to Tony Blair in 1997 but also lost the plot - instead of finding a charismatic and emollient leader to replace John Major they quixotically appointed a succession of unattractive reactionaries to try to recover the British centre ground that Blair discovered and subsequently developed in his own image.
These leaders appealed to Party members but not, of course, to the electorate: who in his right mind would vote for Michael Howard? Even colleagues said there was “something of the night” about him. (Which Mr Howard recently and amply proved by proposing a war against Spain over Gibralter).
The lesson learned by replacing the unelectable with the delectable - the young, smooth and charming Dave Cameron - has not been lost. Philip Hammond - the Chancellor whose de facto leadership of the Conservatives is based on the interesting fiction that there are no telephones in Switzerland - is a John Major clone: pleasant and trustworthy. The others, the “unpleasant and unattractive ones” (another May descriptor) are for now safely locked in a dark broom cupboard in Westminster.
But if Philip Hammond is the answer, he is also the problem: John Major lost in 1997 not because he wasn‘t a safe pair of hands, but because he was.
Few quote Theresa May in full:
"Yes, we've made progress, but let's not kid ourselves. There's a way to go before we can return to government. There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies, You know what some people call us: the nasty party."
In these irony-laden days one is apt to forget that the Conservatives not only lost an election to Tony Blair in 1997 but also lost the plot - instead of finding a charismatic and emollient leader to replace John Major they quixotically appointed a succession of unattractive reactionaries to try to recover the British centre ground that Blair discovered and subsequently developed in his own image.
These leaders appealed to Party members but not, of course, to the electorate: who in his right mind would vote for Michael Howard? Even colleagues said there was “something of the night” about him. (Which Mr Howard recently and amply proved by proposing a war against Spain over Gibralter).
The lesson learned by replacing the unelectable with the delectable - the young, smooth and charming Dave Cameron - has not been lost. Philip Hammond - the Chancellor whose de facto leadership of the Conservatives is based on the interesting fiction that there are no telephones in Switzerland - is a John Major clone: pleasant and trustworthy. The others, the “unpleasant and unattractive ones” (another May descriptor) are for now safely locked in a dark broom cupboard in Westminster.
But if Philip Hammond is the answer, he is also the problem: John Major lost in 1997 not because he wasn‘t a safe pair of hands, but because he was.
