Next Tory Leader.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Let's assume Cameron doesn't make the gains he was expected/wanted


Hague type result?

Howard type result?


Who becomes the next Conservative leader? Or can Cameron break the chain of resignations and promise to win next time?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

A 'Howard' type result (Howard performed above expectations remember - the money appeared to be on a Labour majority of 100+) would see a hung parliament, with Labour as largest party. If the Conservatives take a higher % share of the vote than Labour do, then Labours mandate is shaky to negligable. In such a scenario, Cameron is likely to stay.

With a Hague style result Cameron could go. Only, as Howard chose to do, if there was a potential leader in waiting. There isnt one. William Hague will not take the job, David Davis is still not well liked by MPs etc.

The only potential candidates at this stage in my opinion are Chris Grayling who is already being talked about and is a fantastic shadow minister, and Alan Duncan.

Hague wants to be Prime Minister, when he says otherwise, he's lying. Now, we can be certain he wont take the job again if the situation doesn't look ripe for a victory, but a dissapointment by Cameron may provide actually that.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

While acceptance of homosexual polticians has reached a much better level in the UK then it has (or may ever in the future) reach here, I wouldn't be too quick to elect a gay leader to ANY of the major parties (or minor ones) it shouldn't and probably wouldn't make that much of a difference, but in the current climate, a few thats could make a difference.


Afleitch, I'm gunna need a much better fight from you about Hague, I may be ignorant, but I have read and heard about "him not wanting to be leader again" but he does and you know it, a Cameron dissapointment frankly makes the situation ripe, and as Cameron has looked increasingly as a Blair gone wrong, Hague has increasingly become the elephant in the room.

That being said, I'm not anti Cameron, and a victory now would be better than later.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Hague will never be leader again if he has anything to do with it. You have to remember he is now a biographer, writer, broadsheet media pundit (and Have I Got News For You panel show fave) and businessman for want of a better term, or at least was until Cameron pulled him back into the shadow cabinet. A backbencher with his eloquence and intelligence can have a comfortable and high profile life (basically the upmarket version of Portillo) without being on the front line. Had he not been brought back into the shadow cabinet it is probably he would have retired from the Commons at the next election. He has no desire to be leader and has repeatedly distanced himself from calls to be leader that he now jokes about it.

The only capacity in which he would return as leader would be if no one else wanted to do it and it was believed that he was needed. If Conservative MP's wanted him and only him he'd do it, but not under any other circumstance.

And what about the above scenario seems unlikely to you at this point?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

While acceptance of homosexual polticians has reached a much better level in the UK then it has (or may ever in the future) reach here, I wouldn't be too quick to elect a gay leader to ANY of the major parties (or minor ones) it shouldn't and probably wouldn't make that much of a difference, but in the current climate, a few thats could make a difference.


Afleitch, I'm gunna need a much better fight from you about Hague, I may be ignorant, but I have read and heard about "him not wanting to be leader again" but he does and you know it, a Cameron dissapointment frankly makes the situation ripe, and as Cameron has looked increasingly as a Blair gone wrong, Hague has increasingly become the elephant in the room.

That being said, I'm not anti Cameron, and a victory now would be better than later.

You've always been a fan Hague's, you mention him a lot. The fact is the man lost a general election in a huge landslide, no sane party would nominate someone again after an event like that.

Alan Duncan is gay? This intrigues me. I used to think Ian Duncan Smith was good looking but I just googled his picture and I don't know what I was thinking    

I'm disturbed to hear that Cameron isn't doing that well. Hopefully, he'll win the next election, because the longer Labour stay in power, the harder they'll fall when they eventually lose. I don't ever want to see an election like 1983 or 1987 again.

Jesus Christ himself could have been Tory leader and lost in a landslide, we all know that.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

While acceptance of homosexual polticians has reached a much better level in the UK then it has (or may ever in the future) reach here, I wouldn't be too quick to elect a gay leader to ANY of the major parties (or minor ones) it shouldn't and probably wouldn't make that much of a difference, but in the current climate, a few thats could make a difference.


Afleitch, I'm gunna need a much better fight from you about Hague, I may be ignorant, but I have read and heard about "him not wanting to be leader again" but he does and you know it, a Cameron dissapointment frankly makes the situation ripe, and as Cameron has looked increasingly as a Blair gone wrong, Hague has increasingly become the elephant in the room.

That being said, I'm not anti Cameron, and a victory now would be better than later.

You've always been a fan Hague's, you mention him a lot. The fact is the man lost a general election in a huge landslide, no sane party would nominate someone again after an event like that.

Alan Duncan is gay? This intrigues me. I used to think Ian Duncan Smith was good looking but I just googled his picture and I don't know what I was thinking    

I'm disturbed to hear that Cameron isn't doing that well. Hopefully, he'll win the next election, because the longer Labour stay in power, the harder they'll fall when they eventually lose. I don't ever want to see an election like 1983 or 1987 again.

Jesus Christ himself could have been Tory leader and lost in a landslide, we all know that.

Which election, 2001? Not necessarily. Tony Blair was never as popular as the election results suggest (it's worth pointing out that Labour's overall vote fell at the 2001 and 2005 elections and that the parliamentary majority remained more or less the same due to falling voter participation).

The Tory campaign in 2001 was an absolute shambles. The Tories kept treating the election as a "referendum" on the Euro currency without addressing issues such as health care, education and other things people cared far more about; coupled with an economic policy that was confused at best (the numbers basically did not add up - some, more cynical, political commentators have suggested that then-shadow Chancellor Michael Portillo deliberately sabotaged the Tory campaign to undermine Hague so he could become leader after a disastrous 2001 election).

Hague himself was terribly ineffectual as Tory leader, and at best was a laughing stock in the eyes of many (witness his claim that he used to drink 14 pints a day as a teenager, which was a blatant lie to look like "one of the people"). It's only since his resignation as leader that he has managed to rehibiliate his image; he certainly comes across as a lot more statesman-like these days than he did then (no doubt due to his relative lack of experience at the time), and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he was given a second chance as leader at some point in the future.

Anyway, had the Tories picked Ken Clark as their leader in '97, chances are they would have done a lot better at the 2001 election - maybe not a victory, but certainly not a landslide defeat. The same, by the way, applies to the 2005 election.

I agree with the description of the chaos, and also the inexperience of Hague (which in turn allowed Portillo to undermine many things)


But look at the target Hague set for 2001.... 209 seats.... while I can agree you can attribute some of that to his inexperience, he had many others around him, who help him set his goals, who helped him establish policy, who told him to wear that stupid hat.... I really think they had no idea what a huge whole they were digging out of....

I remember an interview he did a while ago with BBC, when he first met with Blair after becoming leader of the opposition, after getting the pleasantries finished (call me Tony) Hague asked Blair "So, who do you think has the harder job?"  Just as Hague said "I do" Blair pointed and said "You do" I think that says a lot.