[A-List] UK state: political realignment

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

A leader the parliamentary Tory party never wanted
EDWARD PEARCE: Comment
The Herald, 6 November 2002

IAIN Duncan Smith has turned on his tormentors and spoken about the
Conservative party having "to unite or die".

He is also described rather limply as being "furious".

There is of course a temptation to contrast this stand by a Tory leader and
the one in June 1995 when John Major announced his resignation from the
leadership.

Mr Major too had been under assault from discontented or ambitious
colleagues and from a large part of the press, especially in his case, the
Conservative press.

The party attacks were well co-ordinated and involved former colleagues.

Mr Major later noted the names: "But some of those capable of the most
damage were among my present or former ministers. Neil Hamilton, a former
minister for corporate affairs at the DTI, and Edward Leigh, soon an ally of
John Redwood, were indefatigable in their cause.

"Newer MPs such as Bernard Jenkin and Iain Duncan Smith were serious
propagandists too, and would work to a calculated line in the members' tea
room."

It is a pretty little irony that, as a quite different set of people works
the tea room, not only is Mr Duncan Smith's leadership under fire, but the
first front bench colleague to leap in and denounce the conspirators was
Bernard Jenkin. However, there are important differences. John Major spoke
to a press conference from the Rose Garden of Downing Street. Mr Smith
"issued a statement" from his leader of the opposition's office.

Mr Major was prime minister, fountain of patronage and head of government,
the knocking down of whom was a bigger, more scandalous act than the
overthrow of a party leader. And of course, Mr Major did not resign the
premiership. He used the leadership contest which he won, not brilliantly,
but by enough to stay prime minister for his full term.

Equally important, he moved when no-one expected it. Quiet, mocked, put-upon
Mr Major hit his conspirators most unfairly, before they were ready to hit
him, with a pre-emptive strike.

It was planned and thought out, discussed with his family, then with
successive circles of advisers and the closest cabinet members. One
minister, Stephen Dorrell, learned it where I did, at Lords during the West
Indies Test. Mr Major had even worked out the day for the announcement,
letting Thursday's parliamentary questions pass, with opponents and their
friends half-way home. Enemy organisation was delayed while his was in
place. He called the shots for the campaign and was rewarded by a brilliant
response in some far from friendly newspapers.

Certainly Mr Major had been under assault like Mr Duncan Smith. Mr Major's
mind had finally been made up by a delegation of anti-European MPs whose
offensiveness convinced him that conciliation was a waste of time. But he
moved before a campaign against him had got off the ground, making a
clear-cut challenge, his resignation, to spring a contest for the
leadership.

Mr Duncan Smith by contrast, has moved after a full week's hostile fire,
fully covered by delighted newspapers. He is ready with a response only on
the same day that a newspaper headline reads "Rebels Ambush Duncan Smith".
We are witnessing the distinction between pro-action and reaction.

Mr Duncan Smith's enemies have organised for the kill, coolly exploiting a
pretty trivial issue - adoption by unmarried couples - as the occasion for
that ambush. Mr Major responded to a bad private meeting, waited for a lull,
held planning conversations and then quickly moved into the public domain
ahead of his enemies. Mr Duncan Smith is waiting to see if the necessary 25
will challenge him. He is stumbling behind, led, not leading, parodying
opponents' image of dull passivity.

There is another dimension to the comparison. Mr Major faced trouble from
people with a specific cause. It came from a fervent anti-Europeanism
driving the core of his opponents.

Mr Duncan Smith does not have ideological enemies - he has sensibly put the
euro (which he opposes) on ice; he is trying hard to make the party less
"nasty". However, arguments about adoption and clause 28 are surrogates for
political issues.

The real issue is personal. Mr Duncan Smith was chosen under the new rules,
chosen by the constituency activists. He has never been the man the
parliamentary party wanted and they do not want him now.

He is, moreover, leading an opposition three years out from the next
election. Any blood that spills, probably his, will be dry in 2005 or 2006.
But he should still seek a contest. John Major quoted the famous lines of
Montrose

He either fears his fate too much

Or his deserts are small,

That puts it not unto the touch

To win or lose it all.

Following such counsel would make the differences much smaller.

-----

How Duncan Smith's tactics backfired
CATHERINE MacLEOD and MICHAEL SETTLE: Analysis
The Herald, 6 November 2002

WHITHER now the Conservative party, and more particularly Iain Duncan Smith?
These were the only questions in the air at Westminster yesterday once the
Tory leader called the extraordinary press conference to announce nothing
less than the demise of the Conservative party if it failed to rally to his
leadership.

Almost immediately, Mr Duncan Smith's panic appeal appeared to have
backfired spectacularly. Ladbrokes shortened the odds on the Tory leader's
surviving to the end of the year, offering 3-1 on him going by Christmas,
down from 5-1.

A company spokesman revealed shortly before IDS's "unite or die" statement
that a mystery punter bet £50 at 5-1 in a branch near the Commons on his
quitting within the next two months.

Front-bench Tories defended Mr Duncan Smith's challenge to his detractors
but others looked on, aghast and horrified. Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP
MPs were mesmerised. A Labour insider suggested nothing like this had
happened since the general secretary of the Labour party declared "full
confidence" in Michael Foot's leadership during the general election
campaign of 1983.

Mr Duncan Smith's prospects do not look bright. Even supporters are now
suggesting he might resign by Christmas if yesterday's gamble, to reach out
to grassroots Tories, does not pay off.

The hastily arranged press conference very much looked like the beginning of
the end for his leadership.

How apt, journalists thought as they sat expectantly at Tory HQ, that it
should all be happening on November 5, the day of Guy Fawkes, the patron
saint of plotters, and almost 12 years to the day since Mrs Thatcher was
unceremoniously dumped from office on November 12, 1990.

After more than a quarter of the Tory's parliamentary party defied a
three-line whip on the government's Adoption Bill on Monday night, something
had to give.

The result of the vote, with more than 40 rebels, including some top Tories
such as Michael Portillo - or "Plotillo" as he has now been christened - was
probably far worse than IDS could have imagined.

Yesterday morning, the Conservative leader together with David Davis, who
shadows John Prescott, were due in the east end of London to promote their
policy on housing. A gaggle of journalists and some officials from central
office hung around, waiting for IDS. But he did not appear.

A tannoy message in the parliamentary press gallery announced that the Tory
leader would be holding a press conference at noon, to make a personal
statement.

All that was missing was a thunderclap. The words "personal statement"
seemed ominous. Needless to say, the expectant hacks became even more
expectant, if that were possible, and talk of an IDS resignation flew across
the room.

With military correctness, IDS spoke of "resolve", "courtesy", "decency" and
"honesty". But it was the words "sabotaged", "self-indulgence" and
"indiscipline" that were the most potent.

Once over, a deeply embarrassed Mr Duncan Smith left the podium hurriedly.
One reporter shouted out: "What about the questions?" Indeed.

With his "unite or die" speech, the die had been cast. Mr Duncan Smith, once
the rebel, had declared war on his own rebels and one could not help
thinking history was repeating itself.

Three or four main alternatives to IDS have emerged.

David Davis, a fellow right-winger who lost in last year's contest and threw
his lot in behind IDS, would carry the traditionalist flame.

Having been humiliated in the summer when, while on holiday in Florida, the
party leader demoted him from the chairmanship to shadowing John Prescott,
the Yorkshire MP was given a reason to exact revenge.

Kenneth Clarke, the former chancellor, who was beaten by IDS in last year's
contest following the Tories' second bad electoral defeat, continues not to
rule himself out.

Certainly voter-friendly, his big disadvantage is that he is a leading
europhile. By next June and probably by the chancellor's budget in March,
the nation will know which way Tony Blair will jump on a referendum and,
either way, it could be good for his chances.

Mr Portillo, the former defence secretary who was odds-on to win the Tory
crown after William Hague's embarrassing electoral defeat, has repeatedly
ruled himself out.

However, he did this before the last contest, so few at Westminster believe
him. Certainly a star performer in public, the Kensington and Chelsea MP has
an achilles heel: few like him.

The dark horse could be Theresa May, the first Tory woman chairman. Her
elevation has surprised many at Westminster, given how she, time and again,
let Stephen Byers, the former transport secretary, off the hook.

Ladbrokes made Ms May and Mr Davis joint favourites to replace Mr Duncan
Smith at 3-1, followed by Kenneth Clarke at 7-1, Mr Letwin at 8-1 and Mr
Portillo at 10-1.

A sixth alternative is that the modernisers led by Mr Clarke with Mr
Portillo and Ms May, and perhaps Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary,
could attempt a coup d'etat against IDS.

Mr Clarke is used to pacts, and this one could involve Mr Clarke being
leader up to the next election, with the aim of reducing Labour's majority
so that the Tories have a realistic chance of winning in 2009-10 under the
New Tory leadership of Mr Portillo.

Last night, Warren Lush of Ladbrokes said: "The market for the next Tory
leader continues to attract interest. We've even had one bet on a return for
William Hague at 100-1."

An illustration perhaps of just how bad things now are at Conservative high
command.