How should Iain Duncan-Smith reform the tories?

[Hamlet]

Suggestions?

How should he reform the party before the next election, to lead it back from the abyss, Kinnock-fashion?

Is that even possible? Is the party doomed to fragment after a third terrible electoral outing? What does the future hold?

Discuss.

 

[ainwood]

Have policies that bow to the masses - ie extreme socialism. Go even further than New Labour:

E.g. "We will raise the top tax rate, and lower the base tax rate, because 'the rich can afford to pay more' ".


Remember; the goal here is to get elected, not to do what's best for the country!

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ainwood
Have policies that bow to the masses - ie extreme socialism. Go even further than New Labour

That hasn't appealed to voters for decades, what makes you think they'll start loving it now?

Also, are you venturing that New Labour is extreme socialism?

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Hamlet


That hasn't appealed to voters for decades, what makes you think they'll start loving it now?

Also, are you venturing that New Labour is extreme socialism?

Not at all, although compared to NZ it could be considered that!

And I do think socialist policies are popular, as long as you don't call them that - telling people how badly-off they are, how they deserve better, how the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer seems to work well. Especially if you blame the opposition for their plight.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ainwood
And I do think socialist policies are popular, as long as you don't call them that - telling people how badly-off they are, how they deserve better, how the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer seems to work well. Especially if you blame the opposition for their plight.

Isn't this essentially what Labour are doing now?

 

[Greadius]

Wasn't Labour out of power for some 18 years, including most of my lifetime? Only because a party is stagnant doesn't mean it is dead. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Tony Blair's strategy to end Labour's blight kind of follow the same track Bill Clinton did and take moderate economic stances?

I suppose the trick would be to moderate on the issues that make them unpopular (I'd wager it social issues).

And wager a clandestine war to have Labour voters think there is no difference been them and the Liberal party; if they can split the leftist vote better between those two they'll be in great shape.

In the U.S. at least, class warfare doesn't win elections because poor people don't vote.

 

[Richard III]

My views on the subject

1. Get rid of the bizarre leadership election process and go back to the 1922 committee

2. Make it an anti-euro or bust party

3. He should purge the party of bigots, and make a point of doing it publicly.

4. He should resign and let Portillo have his job (ok, maybe that's a little unrealistic, but you asked...)

 

[amadeus]

Kick out moderates like Duncan-Smith, and make Thatcher or an equivilant to Thatcher the leader.

The left is going further left, and the right is going left. That's not right!

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Kick out moderates like Duncan-Smith, and make Thatcher or an equivilant to Thatcher the leader.

Duncan-Smith is Thatcher in trousers. He is not 'moderate' by any stretch of the imaginiation.

This is also probably why he is the wrong man to lead the party into the modern age.

Also, like the Tory party in general, your Thatcher fetish is disturbing considering the rest of the country got over her a decade ago.

I doubt Thatcher would actually win an election nowadays, in any case.

Originally posted by Richard III
Get rid of the bizarre leadership election process and go back to the 1922 committee

Why? I suggest simplifying it, but taking it a step backwards would be silly, and would be lambasted publically.

Also, Duncan-Smith clearly isn't going to do that, because if he ever had a leadership challenege, he could count on the loyalty of the grass roots, but not The MP's. (The support of which Kenneth Clarke won over himself, if I remember correctly.)

Originally posted by Richard III
Make it an anti-euro or bust party

That would be a popular. It would be a terrible liability, but it would be popular.

Originally posted by Richard III
He should purge the party of bigots, and make a point of doing it publicly.

That would be good. Sort of like Kinnock with militant.

Originally posted by Greadius
I suppose the trick would be to moderate on the issues that make them unpopular

Yes, but how do they do that? They are seen, rightly or wrongly by the electorate as 'The hang 'em and flog 'em, shoot all poor people and privatise your mother party'.

Originally posted by Greadius
In the U.S. at least, class warfare doesn't win elections because poor people don't vote.

Who does?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Hamlet
\Why? I suggest simplifying it, but taking it a step backwards would be silly, and would be lambasted publically.

Also, Duncan-Smith clearly isn't going to do that, because if he ever had a leadership challenege, he could count on the loyalty of the grass roots, but not The MP's. (The support of which Kenneth Clarke won over himself, if I remember correctly.)

I guess it's a boring process issue, but we Canadians have just had two experiences that have led some observers to see thw wisdom of the 1922 Committee process.

First, we're in a parliamentary system, so for the system to work, the leader has to have the support of caucus. There is no better way to test that support than to let caucus pick the leader. If the Alliance Party in Canada had had a 1922 system, they would not have wasted the last year in a civil war between the MPs and an incompetent leader foisted on them by the party's "membership."

Which leads me to point II: Stockwell Day, the leader in question, was elected by a massive infusion "instant members" of Canada's version of the moral majority. And caucus members do have the virtue of having actually been elected, so their commitment to the party's ideals is better than those of "instant tories" signed up for the ballot. The provincial tory party that I work for almost had the same experience with its new "quasi-primary" system last month.

All in all, the old process has many benefits for a party: it's cheap, it's no less democratic and in fact somewhat more so than a delegate system; it's fast, and it forces you to use tested candidates who are for the most part already in the house and familiar to the decision-makers. It directly correlates accountability for a job (leader in parliament) to the job itself (through the parliamentary party).

Oh, and one thing you'll find with a member-election system: you'll never have a leadership review. The process is so big, the party leadership will now have much more control over it. Meaning that necessary coups - like the one that took out Maggie - will never happen until it's too late.

Not so backward after all, in my view.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The words of Captain Edmund Blackadder regarding Field Marshall Haig come to mind:
"His resignation and suicide seem the obvious answer."


He should move further to the right, because it is right, and it is his right to be right.

"They are seen, rightly or wrongly by the electorate as 'The hang 'em and flog 'em, shoot all poor people and privatise your mother party'."

Sensible policies for a happier Britain.
Well, apart from the privatise your mother bit, but I guess I missed the legislation that nationalized mothers...

Institute some iron discipline and put some spine into the party.

 

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The left is going further left, and the right is going left. That's not right!

You clearly have no grasp of the British political scene. Tony Blair's Labour are supposedly the left-wing party but since election they have inched ever closer to the centre and then to the right. On certain issues they are further right than your detested moderate Conservatives. We therefore have a choice that you would relish: either the mildy right wing left-wing party or the right wing right-wing party. The Lib Dems are still in the centre, but have started to move a little bit left, which is a sensible move as long as they can convince people that they are still the most central party. They will begin to pick up leftist support that Labour have lost by moving toward the right. I'd like to see this happen so that we have an almost equal three party system rather than the two party one prevalent in Western democracies.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by duke o' york
You clearly have no grasp of the British political scene.

He has no grasp of American politics either

A major problem in the conservative party is the EU split between the Tories and the Whigs. Perhaps the party would be better severed by splitting up... but then they would never win an election. Unless, now, they made an unholy alliance with the Liberal Democrats to change the electoral rules in Britian to proportional representation like every other Parlimentary democracy uses...

I don't know though, its only been 5 years with Blair... since WW2, Conservatives have been in control for a total of 35 years compared to 22 for Labour. Very premature to call the party dead, but they're definately stagnant.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by duke o' york
On certain issues they are further right than your detested moderate Conservatives.

Grrr, more rhetoric.

What issues be these?

For all Labour's showmanship in making themselves out to be non-socialist, they are still firmly mired in the centre left, if you actually examine their policies.

Originally posted by Greadius
A major problem in the conservative party is the EU split between the Tories and the Whigs.

Whigs? I think you're a few centuries too late.

Originally posted byGreadius
Perhaps the party would be better severed by splitting up...

Hardly, it would split the right vote down the middle, al la The SDP and Labour in the 80's.

Originally posted by Greadius
Unless, now, they made an unholy alliance with the Liberal Democrats to change the electoral rules in Britian to proportional representation like every other Parlimentary democracy uses...

Fat chance.

The Conservatives will stick by FPTP though it may lay them waste. It has served them well in the past, and they have stood by it since the year dot. After all, they are conservatives.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Whigs? I think you're a few centuries too late.

What do they call the pro-EU early-Liberal party splits then?

Originally posted by Hamlet
The Conservatives will stick by FPTP though it may lay them waste. It has served them well in the past, and they have stood by it since the year dot. After all, they are conservatives.

Good point... it would be very self defeating for them to be the progressive element on vote reform.
I still can't imagine how FPTP and Parlimentary democracies go together

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Greadius
What do they call the pro-EU early-Liberal party splits then?

Eh? Wasn't aware there were any.

Originally posted by Greadius
I still can't imagine how FPTP and Parlimentary democracies go together

Why not?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Eh? Wasn't aware there were any.

During the 19th century when party competition was between Liberals (Free market types) and Conservatives. They merged after the Labor party began to develop as a competitive party. They are the ones in the Conservative party who care about economics but don't really care about the hard-line social policy prevelant in the party.

Originally posted by Hamlet
Why not?

Well, proportional representation seems to work fine for the continental European parliments. Coalition governments are the closest you can get to divided government one can have under Presidential systems, which in my opinion is the optimal set-up. The way accountability and seperation of powers is set up in Britian, I think it concentrates too much power on whoever holds the Cabinet positions.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Greadius
They are the ones in the Conservative party who care about economics but don't really care about the hard-line social policy prevelant in the party.

Ah, I see. My apologies if you lost me at some point, but we went from Pro-EU liberals to 19th century splits betweeen free-marketeers and protectionists.

Originally posted by Greadius
Well, proportional representation seems to work fine for the continental European parliments. Coalition governments are the closest you can get to divided government one can have under Presidential systems

Yes, but coalitions aren't all good - Look at The Weimar Republic and the majority of Post-War Italy.

Originally posted by Greadius
I think it concentrates too much power on whoever holds the Cabinet positions.

Far too much power, yes, (Lord Chancellor, for example, who is a member of all three branches of government. ) but resolution of that doesn't necessarily have to be achieved via coalitions, which, I have to say wouldn't really achieve seperation of the powers any better than one-party government.