Michael Portillo could always be described as someone who had a unique ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He's at it again in the Sunday Times today. In an otherwise thought provoking article on Ming Campbell and Cameron's promise to leave the EPP, he argues that Cameron should drop his promise as a truly courageous act of political leadership. He reminds Cameron of Machiavelli's words...
“A prudent leader will not and should not observe his promises, when such observance will work against him and when the reasons for making the promise are no longer valid.”
But then he goes and blows it by reviving his rather odd feud with William Hague. A few weeks ago Portillo called for Cameron to sack Hague and David Davis to demonstrate that the Party had really 'changed'. Today he wants Cameron to provoke Hague into resigning.
In his speech last week Hague struggled to avoid the narrow nationalist rhetoric that characterised his leadership of the party. But when chairing the television programme Have I Got News for You, Hague recovered his Basil Fawlty tone, remarking: “If anyone has got a history of making themselves feel at home in other people’s countries, it’s the Germans.” Thus spake the shadow foreign secretary as England fans headed for the World Cup. With Hague so committed to constructing a fruitcake alliance, an interesting possibility suggests itself. Perhaps Cameron is being cleverer than it appears. So far from being reactionary over Europe, maybe he is building up to his most dramatic demonstration yet that the Tories have broken with their recent history. He could now go back on his promise, which would shatter Hague’s credibility and force him to resign, providing a double disavowal of the party’s past. Now that would be truly Machiavellian.
With political acumen like that, thank God the man never became leader of the Conservative Party
“A prudent leader will not and should not observe his promises, when such observance will work against him and when the reasons for making the promise are no longer valid.”
But then he goes and blows it by reviving his rather odd feud with William Hague. A few weeks ago Portillo called for Cameron to sack Hague and David Davis to demonstrate that the Party had really 'changed'. Today he wants Cameron to provoke Hague into resigning.
In his speech last week Hague struggled to avoid the narrow nationalist rhetoric that characterised his leadership of the party. But when chairing the television programme Have I Got News for You, Hague recovered his Basil Fawlty tone, remarking: “If anyone has got a history of making themselves feel at home in other people’s countries, it’s the Germans.” Thus spake the shadow foreign secretary as England fans headed for the World Cup. With Hague so committed to constructing a fruitcake alliance, an interesting possibility suggests itself. Perhaps Cameron is being cleverer than it appears. So far from being reactionary over Europe, maybe he is building up to his most dramatic demonstration yet that the Tories have broken with their recent history. He could now go back on his promise, which would shatter Hague’s credibility and force him to resign, providing a double disavowal of the party’s past. Now that would be truly Machiavellian.
With political acumen like that, thank God the man never became leader of the Conservative Party
33 comments:
Many on our side also thank heaven that Portillo never became Tory leader. He would have proved far better than the last 3 herberts and been a much more credible alkternative to Blair (as would fatty Clarke by the way).
I've found Portillo one of the most bitter and odious men associated with the party. He sold out and lost. He can't seem to handle that
I don't know about him selling out, I don't think he ever bought in.
Im not sure Portillo was "urging cameron to provoke hague to resign"
Wasn't he just speculating about strategy?
First time I have ever agreed with Bob Piper(worrying). Clarke would have been a far better choice than Dave, the Tories would be 20 points ahead and have a foot in no.10.
I am anti-EU but this just wouldn't have been an issue during this Parliament. Opportunity missed, though Dave still looks to have a 2 in 3 chance of winning the election anyway.
I don't think Ken Clarke would have been much good if he had managed to win any of the leadership contests.
He is notoriously cavalier about mastering his brief, and if you think poor ol' Minger has a charisma bypass, you should think about how Clarke would be viewed these days. The country is already fed up with one fat useless blustering oaf, and Clarke doesn't even possess Prescott's charm of manner and winning personality...
I always think back to the hustings in Westminster between IDS & Clarke. In front a huge audience, IDS came on first. He had a bad cold at the time, so wasn't at his best, oratorically speaking, but he was excellent with questions from the floor, and clearly had the support of much of the hall.
Clarke came on next. Not exactly to Nuremberg-rally style applause, but the mood was one of being willing to give the guy a fair hearing.
Within 3 or 4 minutes, he had turned this huge and peaceful audience into the nearest thing to an angry mob that I have seen. I was really startled.
I felt he got off the stage just in time to avoid being hurled bodily from it. For a supposedly experienced pol, he did everything he could to antagonise an initially reasonable audience, whose support was essential to him.
Had he been elected leader, most activists would have left the Party shortly thereafter.
Despite the mania for EU membership displayed by successive generations of Tory leaders, the majority of the Party masses have been against it since at least 1992. Clarke - as one of the most rabid Federasts - could not have won the support of the Party, and without it, he would never have won an election.
Michael Oakshott is talking utter tripe. The mark of a pthetic opportunist is someone who consistently hypothesises to suit their idiotic blinkered belief that "things would be better if people listened to me".
Ken Clarke lost.. get over it and back the leader.
When did Hague chair HIGNFY? Did I miss it or am I suffering from some sort of amnesia?
MacHavielli's remark was that it was wise for a Prince to break his word when needful, not to do so over every token measure, which the EPP thing certainly is. In this case a careful reading of the author gives the opposite lesson from what Portillo says.
Even if Portillo no longer chooses to describe himself as a Conservative, his behaviour towards the party, as evidenced by that article is contemptible.
Anyone who's watched Portillo when William Hague's name is brought up can see how bitter he is.
There isn't much to admire about Portillo, he undermined every leader he served under but never actually had the balls to get the top job, he lurched from one extreme of the party to the other and then denounced as extremists those who's views had been far more moderate than his ever were. He constantly got his lackeys to brief surreptiously against his rivals and yet squealed like a pig when the equally loathsome Amanda Platell did the same to him.
Er, Portillo cocks it up again, here's an article in today's Telegraph:
Cameron gives Hague month to get MEPs out of Brussels group
By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor
(Filed: 11/06/2006)
David Cameron has given William Hague one month to sort out the ''mess" of the Conservatives' stalled promise to leave the European People's Party.
The Tory leader is said to be deeply dismayed at his shadow Foreign Secretary's failure to deliver on the pledge, which was instrumental in garnering the support of at least 20 Right-wingers for Mr Cameron's successful attempt to head the party.
Portillo must have a terribly empty life. He spent his career being a groupie of the Right and now ingratiates himself with the media by tacking left.
He is what the Russians called a "careerist" and seems to be a Vicar of Bray character and wholly untrustworthy.
I cannot take him seriously and still have the Rory Bremner sketch of him with his "S. A. S. speech" to remind me what a complete prat Portillo is
Who really gives a toss what Senor Portillo thinks about any subject?
He has his place in the history of this country : one of the most hated and despised politicians of the past 200 years - and he knows it!(hence his bitterness and pathetic pandering to what he perceives as fashionable metropolitan opinion )
Well it is rather hard to back the leader when he has nothing to say in the way of actual POLICY. I was careful to say that I disagree with Clarke on Europe, but he is clearly the more formidable politician. The fact that Clarke lost the election does not stop anyone having the right to debate the merits(or lack thereof) of Dave's leadership. Clarke would also not have allowed the Party not to be associated with the likes Rickett, which is reason alone to wish he would have won the leadership over Dave.
I won't be backing Dave any time soon, and I suspect there are thousands of Tory members like me.
You're too cynical Mr Oakshott. David Cameron should be given the time necessary to implement his reforms. Another week or two at the most.
Another load of crap from Michael Oakshott. I never judge a person until I have met them. Oakshott may have met Rickett, but in all honesty he probably hasn't, so is making up as much rabid nonsense as he possibly can about the guy to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Judging the guy from his one appearence on Question Time is also wrong. The guy had the balls to actually appear. As for Clarke... to lose out to IDS is bad enough, but to have such appalling judgement over Europe for so long is also inexcusable.
Well I will not replicate your rather personal and childish tone. It tends to take away from your point. See if you can do better next time.
Well if you only judge a person when you meet them, then it does rather limit your judgement doesn't it? "Hitler? Never met him, wouldn't want to be critical until I heard from him what his problem with the Jews was"(!) and so on. I am simply expressing my opinion about Rickett, not trying to appeal to anyone thanks.
Rickett was awful on Question Time. Balls can easily be confused with stupidity I find. And the reason he IS judged on Question Time is because there is nothing else. Maybe if he had stood in the local elections, and tried to get more experience I would have more respect for him. He seems to believe that his role on a two bit soap opera entitles him to respect. No it doesn't. He is a joke and that people treat him as such is merely life. I just don't wish the party to be associated with promoting such people when they have done nothing.
As for Clarke's views on Europe. I disagree with him profoundly. But the point is that it would have mattered a jot what the leader of HM Opposition thought about EMU and the rest, because our friends in Brussels are making a right mess of it anyway without our help.
Dave's people somehow think they have the right to expect the blind loyalty of everyone in the party, despite the fact that they wish to purge most of us, and have nothing to say about any of the important policy issues. I don't think so Dave.
WHAT?!?! they cant get rid of hague! he slays ppl in pmq's, his are fantastique! :-D
Comparing Rickett to Hitler!! That's a good way of admitting you are really not very good at arguing a point.
His article in the Telegraph was remarkably sound (Rickett, not Adolf) and a lot of people have been dire on QT and still gone on to be very effective politicians. The other week George Osborne was on and didn't cover himself in glory. No-one can argue that GO is one of the leading people behind Cameron's invigorating of the Party.
As for Europe, or rather the EU (there is a huge distinction), DC is just being consistent. If you take the 27 Conservative MEP's out of the EPP (or rather 26 as Roger Helmer has had the whip removed) and the EPP loses a lot of clout. If we can form a sizeable number of collegues from other parties in different countries then we will be able to provide opposition to the federalist agendaa
Oh dear. If you think I was comparing Hitler to Rickett then you are simply not very bright. Enough said.
The one thing that I most admire about you Tories is your sheer inability to see such common sense.
You lot are losers and wnat to continue the thread for the time being. But just like 1970's-80's Labour, you love yourselves to death regardless of the writing on the wall.
Whether Hague should go is a matter for you and your party.Portillo is no ones fool though.
your theory, if I may be allowed to guess is, nice policies just at the right time along with a seperate Tory party group in the EU jst in time for the election.
Theory predicts that, Labour will be old hat and done for and a bright new Tory party/leader and championing Britain against all comers including those nast foreigners taking all of our NHS money.
a right load of bollocks if you ask me!
You are a million miles out.Take our rights away from us in your dreams, yes. But election manifesto's will require a humane death for yet another leader.
Gary
Ah, Ross! You berate Portiloo even better than I can. You should come and join me in the Labour Party.
we could do with such skill.
Michael Portilo, knew the game was up when he played it for all its worth. Anti EU anti Labour pro privatisation ant this that and the other privatise everything...
Today, Michael knows it's a loser.
So does 'Dave' so does Willie.
You lot though, haven't got a clue.
We loved redistribution of wealth (from you to me) and we loved CND anti nuclear weapons.
We couldn't have both. You stopped us. You ******s!
Today we drop CND and anti Nuclear weapons and we invade countries by standing order but gain redistribution of wealth.
You have learned nothing and it seems you have no intention to either.
You were a great party once.
Gary
The more I read, the more I laugh.
You Tories, you simply are the very best.
Michael Portilo is the most hated....blah blah etc..
Oh come on! All politics is stuck in the middle lane and has been for 25 years in all democracies.
The first to move, left or right is a dead man.
That's why 'Dave' is pretending to be modern tory man in the middle.
You right wing are dead men walking and Labour's left does not exist anymore. The left wing contender for Blair's job is who exactly.
Portilo would win any seat in the country for today's Tories. Simple.
Gary
Three posts Gary, are you trying to convince yourself? An argument you might win.
"If you ask me...". Not sure anyone did but there you go. So another bag of gems. The Tories(the most successful political party in global democratic politics) are born losers. Would love to know the logic for this one Gary.
New Labour stand for redistribution now? Strange that the bottom 10% pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes. Is that the redistribution you mean? I can put up with that sort. Still obsessed with Dave writing the last party election manifesto(as if most of the public even know what a manifesto is!). Like a dog with a bone, something he knows and is determined to milk it(or drone on about it forever).
All politics is stuck in the middle lane. You obviously haven't followed American politics or read the book I recommended. The more you read the more you laugh? Well keep laughing a while more and it will looking in through the windows of no.10 while we roll back the new labour revolution(sic).
Simple. But then so are some of us Gary.
So that's the way you're playing it are you Michael? The Tories are best global political party ever.
So why not copy it then?
The poor in Britain are still poor after 9 years of Labour.
Poor education and health as well no doubt.
Sorry Michael but you have to do better than this, I'm afraid.
Pass your time away patting yourselves on the back, bull each other up over how Britain wants out of Europe, plant trees, ride bikes and do a bit of sledging and the electorate will be running to the ballot box to vote 'Dave'.
No. Politics is about policies. Good old fashioned policies.
Money, tax,help, jobs, care.
Let me write the Conservative manifesto and watch the votes roll in for you.
Call me 'Dave'! you know it makes sense.
Gary
Oakshott has demonstrated a remarkable lack of quality judgement already on this thread, I suppose he isn't the best person to criticise Gary
If you say so...er Anthony.
Not me, guv... I always post under my own name. You really shouldn't be so paranoid about me, Mikey boy!
But I agree with you in what you say to Gary. The Conservative Party are the most successful political party in the Western world because we naturally adapt to the needs of Great Britain at any one time.
Which is why the 'modernisation' agenda of Cameron is a merely renewing of the Party, just as Thatcher, Heath and to a lesser extent Anthony Eden did before him.
Oddly enough, Cameron's leadership, in its combination of Euroscepticism and domestic centrist noises, looks like a delayed victory for the Portillistas (indeed, Cameron has Portillitas such as Maude and May in the Shadow Cabinet).
As for the A-List, didn't Portillo say that one of the first things he would have done had he gained the leadership in 01 was to have imposed more women candidates?
They also share relatively liberal attitudes towards drugs (although Cameron had more sense than to talk so loudly about the legalisation of cannabis, as Portillo did, only to look absolutely clueless about why it was such a good idea on the 01 Tory leadership contender's Question Time special).
I never thought I'd see the day when Portillo became every Labour person's favourite Tory, while he's absolutely loathed by so many in his own party. Ditto Bercow.
Notwithstanding Iain's highly readable (and entertaining) titular chapter in Prime Minister Portillo, one of the more intriguing counterfactuals is what might have happened had Portillo dared (and won) in 95.
If, though, Portillo is bitter towards Hague on a 'It should/could have been me' basis re. the 97 GE and the subsequent Tory leadership election, then it's very reminiscent of Tony Benn's attitude towards Neil Kinnock (particularly in the last two volumes of his Diaries). It may be that Benn, had he held Bristol East (or been adopted for the more winnable Bristol South), would just have split the left-wing vote (so much so that Roy Hattersley might have won). But, judging by the bile and vitriol directed at Kinnock, he probably doesn't feel that. Some of the antagonism is probably rooted in genuine ideological distaste at Kinnock's more centrist drift on 'the ishoos', but all of it?
Redeye: Portilo isn't Labour's favourite Tory. That's a bit too much to bear.
He is probably, to be fair, the Tory that is making a lot of sense out of a bad job.
Portilo is in the middle lane, just like the rest of the UK, Labour is slightly to the left of that lane and most Tories I read in the blogs are so far to the right, they are not asked to form a Government.
True, but you won't accept it.
Gary
Portillo's idea is risible. Hague is an incredible asset to the Tory party and has respect across the country. Nationalism has never been his defining feature (despite the Anti-Tory media spin), but nationalism isn't a vote loser at this time.
To put it mildly Portillo has lost most of his credibility and authority to speak about Tory internal matters. This particular idea will only marginalise him further - which is a good thing.
He's not far off, though, Gary, is he?
Personally, I think that, had he made it to the last two names in 01 (and he might have got the crucial extra vote, had he not put Boris Johnson's nose out of joint with his 'advice'), the Tory members may just have found the revelations about his personal life a lesser evil than Clarke's Europhilia (not to mention the hectoring Clarke manner to which so many of them had the misfortune to be exposed during the leadership roadshow).
That said, if he'd put in as many indifferent performances against Blair at PMQs as he did against Brown while he was Shadow Chancellor, maybe they'd have got rid of him (as they did with IDS) after two years.
Post a Comment