Election again
My post election coverage in France was courtesy of mainly the International Herald & Tribune (ie the New York Times), the Daily Telegraph (delivered to my room, but 3.8 euros...) and today's Sunday Telegraph. So it's rather biased towards coverage of the Right.A few unconnected thoughts.
1. My, how I laughed, when I saw that Michael Howard had said he plans to resign. I am no fan of Howard, who even his supporters find it hard to argue ran a moral or decent campaign. But clearly he has more intelligence than I gave him credit, for he has realised that getting less than 200 seats is no election victory, nor even a large step on the way towards a victory.
2. There was a suggestion in today's Daily Mirror that William Hague, if he can be persuaded to do without £1mn a year, is the front runner for Conservative leader. Well yes, the Daily Mirror ought to campaign for that. I would back them. Hague, an able and decent man in private, was a terrible leader. One example that should be obvious even to the most fervent Tories is his leadership election system, which everyone is now trying to change.
3. According to the S.Telegraph, Hague introduced that system to stop Clarke. And Howard is going to change it to stop Davies. Really though, is there any need to stop Davies? Even Tory MPs, who we all know are not the most intelligent of people, know that Davies is a disaster. Don't agree? That both IDS, who sacked him, and Michael Howard, who appears is prepared to send the party into turmoil to stop him, have those views, is a clue. That no-one outside of political junkies, Tory MPs/party members, and his constituents have ever head of him, is another. And that by and large, his political views are Howard, and then some, completes the case.
The only leader who can bring victory to the Conservatives his John Redwood. His natural style, his rapport with the public, his non-controversial private life, his visibility in this campaign, he would be perfect. Redwood for leader!
4. The Telegraph's readers and writers have completely lost the plot. In the Sunday, Patrick Hennessy complains about the electoral system, and says that it is the differential size of Labour-held and Conservative-held constituencies that explain the votes/seats relationship being Labour biased. I don't think so Patrick. That might explain a bit. The main factor of course if FPTP is a winner takes all system, and really there is no reason why the party with a plurality of votes shouldn't take 100% of the seats, regardless of size. Indeed a good reform would be to recreate the seats so it does that. Reform it by making it an absurdity. If you want PR, Patrick, you should say so. The Daily was worse. Read Saturday's letters page and wince at a class who believe they were born to rule.
5. Talking of which, good old Bryan Ferry's son. Watching his attack on Tony Blair made you thankful that post general-election attacks have subsided from the IRA blowing up London to a member of an even less intelligent class of people, his face contorted with rage, raving about the electorate's decision he refuses to accept whilst trying to attack the Prime Minister and his wife. In that one instance you were reminded why you voted Labour.
posted by Matthew @ 5/08/2005 08:13:00 PM
Comments: 0
