Well, things have taken an interesting turn.
I just know you love restricting Sinn Fein to two seats
I just know you love restricting Sinn Fein to two seats
Don Hitchens: A British Political Mini TL
- Thread starter Gonzo
- Start date
Darling, Iris and McDonnell nooooooooo
Well, at least Double D's kicked out. That should have some ramifications on the next leadership election.
Can't tell if sarcasm for the first two or not...
Yes DD's removal will certainly help the Hitch along with his [REDACTED].
Well, things have taken an interesting turn.
I just know you love restricting Sinn Fein to two seats
They have indeed, I'm waiting to see if someone will point out the glaring clue in the infobox as to what might happen ITTL...
Of course, it's plausible as well, so why not?
Darling I do genuinely like, Iris less so (but she's fun!).Can't tell if sarcasm for the first two or not...
Yes DD's removal will certainly help the Hitch along with his [REDACTED].
I agree, I hear that Iris is [REDACTED DUE TO THREAT OF BEING SUED BY THE ROBINSON ESTATE].
Oh dear, the next election'll be the start to the Terrifying Hitchens Era.
You'll have to wait and see, won't you?
Thanks, I hoped it would be.
I'll give you extra brownie points if you have the GOP keep congress in 2006You'll have to wait and see, won't you?
Thanks, I hoped it would be.
Extract from 'Hitch 22' by Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott (Biteback Publishing, 2020)
While it may be easy with hindsight to state that the 2005 leadership contest was always destined to be a precursor to the events of the subsequent years, at the time it was generally assumed that the race was to be a ‘gentleman’s’ stroll (in the words of Spectator columnist, Matthew Parris.) The race was the first one to be fought under the new rules, put into place in 1998.
The appointment of several new faces after the 2005 general election to Ancram’s interim shadow cabinet, was seen by some commentators as a ‘try out’ for the leadership race. Michael Howard was kept on as Deputy Leader, but he quickly ruled out his intentions to run for the leadership, as did recent re-appointed Shadow Education Secretary Tim Collins (who intended to spend more time “with [his] constituents” after his close victory in general election, in effect standing down more or less immediately after his reappointment.) Newly appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind announced that he was “quite likely” to throw his hat into the ring. Newly appointed Shadow Chancellor David Cameron was said to have been encouraged by his predecessor in the post, Oliver Letwin, to run for the leadership. Former Chancellor and 2001 leadership runner up Kenneth Clarke, stated that he was “interested” in running for the leadership, though it would be several months before he would decide. Tim Yeo and Theresa May, two frontbenchers in the Ancram Shadow Cabinet announced they were interested in running, but subsequently announced they wouldn’t several days later.
During the many weeks of ‘public soundings’ and ‘public declarations,’ a group of ‘hard-right’ Tory MPs met in the ‘smoke filled rooms’ of the Members’ Bar in the House of Commons. Some of the MPs were veterans of the Conservative Monday Club days, while some were members of the Conservative Christian Fellowship and the newly formed socially conservative Cornerstone Group. Among the group were Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke), David Burrowes (Enfield Southgate), Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire), Peter Bone (Wellingborough), Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury), Julian Brazier (Canterbury), Bill Cash (Stone), David Amess (Southend West), among others. The group were determined to put forward a single ‘true conservative’ candidate for the leadership. Whatmore the possibility of not one, not two, but three socially moderate to liberal opponents splitting the left-wing of the party, ensured that their candidate would progress to the run off vote. It became apparent that those candidates on the right who they had formerly believed to be interested in running, such as David Davis, Liam Fox and Ann Widdecome were either no longer in parliament (Davis), opted to not run (Fox) or were backing another candidate (Widdecome, who was backing Kenneth Clarke.)
---
Extract from ‘Comrade Hitchen’s Coup: The Hard Right’s takeover of the Tory Party’ by Polly Toynbee and Peter Walker (Guardian Books, Farber, 2015)
The roots of the hard right’s takeover of the Tory Party can be seen in the 2005 leadership contest. While the hard right were still licking their wounds after being disaffiliated from the party during the leadership of Iain Duncan Smith, they were in many ways back with a vengeance in 2005. They had had a slate of ‘liberal’ leaders of the party, including IDS, who had each failed to promote a ‘genuinely conservative’ message on social, moral and cultural issues. The ragtag group of hard-right Tories, Moral Majority sorts, and general anti-liberal and anti-progressive sorts were determined to ensure that the party no longer continued along it’s trajectory towards social liberalism. This was seen to hit a roadblock when many on the right-wing of the Tory Party refused to be the standard bearer of the this group, either out of a sense of decency or realisation of the herculean task to not show their true beliefs and intentions. It was from this car crash ensemble that Peter Hitchens emerged as the candidate of the party right-wing.
---
Extract from the 'Daily Telegraph' from the 6th September, 2005
"Ladies and Gentlemen... and of course Comrades!" With those words Peter Hitchens, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Kensington & Chelsea, and newspaper columnist, announced his intentions to contest the leadership of the party. Unlike his opponents, Mr. Hitchens, 53 of Oxford, gave a stark and rather gloomy, yet at the same time jovial announcement speech, as he was flanked by his key supporters. Mr. Hitchens' message is very much different to his declared and expected opponents, being that he is the standard bearer of the party's influential right-wing. Mr. Hitchens announced his platform, which included policies such as a commitment by the party to withdraw from the European Union if it wins the next election, to 'row back on the eurocommunism experiment of the Blair Government' and a general regard for 'tradition and morality' in society - all what we would expect from a right-wing Conservative candidate. What makes Mr. Hitchens peculiar for a right-wing, or even a conventional Tory candidate is his support for nationalisation of various industries, notably rail, and his advocacy of nuclear disarmament, two positions generally held by those on the left of the political spectrum.
Mr. Hitchens' bid is backed by various figures on the party's right wing, such as Andrew Hunter, David Burrowes, Bill Cash and David Amess, as well as various members of the 2005 intake. He is also backed by various groups such as the Cornerstone Group, the ultra-right Monday Club successor group the Conservative Democratic Alliance, as well as the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party and even the UK Independence Party. It is generally predicted that with the party's liberal and moderate wing have multiple candidates contesting the ballot, namely Shadow Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke, and Shadow Chancellor David Cameron, who is expected to announce his intentions to run in the next few weeks, if not days.
---
Extract from 'The New Consensus: At the Centre of the Third Age of British Politics ' by Neil Clark (Bloomsburg, 2020)
At the party conference in Blackpool, in October 2005, we realised that our main challenger for the leadership was Cameron; Rifkind and Clarke would most likely be in a race for third place. In Peter's suite we planned his strategy and speech to the conference. The group of us, which included the candidate, myself as his Chief of Staff, as well as a constantly changing collection of backers. It was decided that the right tone in the speech was one in which he would attack Blair and his Government - with subtle comparisons between him and Cameron. It was a risky strategy, with significant portions of the Tory media supporting Cameron (the Blairite candidate in the race), only the Mail and the Express seemed resolute in their support for an anti-Blairite candidate. In that regard we scored a potential coup with Cameron at a fringe event stating that he was 'the heir to Blair.' This wouldn't sit that well with those Tory MPs who had nearly been defeated in three election defeats by the 'Blair creature' and were uncomfortable with even the mere utterance of his name.
As was to be expected the candidate's speech was received as well as could be expected, considering the circumstances by the Cameroon press. Rifkind and Clarke's speeches were mostly ignored, when they weren't, they were being attacked as 'blasts from the past.' Cameron gave a 'great speech' if the Telegraph is to be believed, though it was received 'well' at best by the conference hall. Leaving the conference we had increased our odds of winning to 7/4, as opposed to Cameron's 5/4 odds.
On the 18th the first ballot came, which produced the following result:
Hitchens: 87
Cameron: 63
Clarke: 32
Rifkind: 24
Unsurprisingly we romped home in a healthy first place finish, Cameron coming in second, and the two 'blasts from the past' fighting over third place; Clarke winning that most coveted of places. The second ballot was held two days later on the 20th. On the day before, Rifkind came out and said that either a Cameron or Clarke leadership would be "brilliant," in other words "anyone but Hitchens." This was good for our campaign, as it bolstered our outsider and anti-establishment message. The result of the second round of voting was as follows:
Hitchens: 96
Cameron: 75
Clarke: 35
The campaign proceeded on rather low key, with Peter being attacked in snide assaults in the Cameron media and was subjected to a rather bloodthirsty attempted character assassination in Private Eye (where he was compared to Niccolò Machiavelli in terms of his facial features.) Clarke came out in support of Cameron, as did Rifkind, Tim Yeo and Michael Howard; William Hague in November wrote in the News of the World in Cameron's favour. Peter gained the backing of the likes of Rod Liddle in the Spectator and Richard Littlejohn in the Mail; though very few political 'bigwigs' - take from that what you will. On the 6th December the results of the Members' Vote was declared. The ballot produced the following result:
Cameron: 112,148 (56.4%)
Hitchens: 86,696 (43.6%)
The result was far closer than we had predicted. Most of our internal polls yielded something closer to 60-40 or even 65-35, some even as low as 70-30. Peter gave a magnanimous concession speech, vowing to keep Cameron and Blair on his feet, telling him that he would be back with a vengeance if Cameron failed to deliver. Personally Peter was rather angry, not at losing, but at the fact that the Tory Party had been turned over to Blairism. He wasn't going to let it happen quietly. He made his feelings very clear when he flat out refused Cameron's offer of becoming Shadow Home Secretary, later altered to Shadow Culture, Media and Sports Secretary, which Peter also refused. He was determined to prevent Cameron becoming Prime Minister, getting together a team in the event that he could challenge him at a later date, when the political winds had changed. They would change, but for that time Cameron was allowed to have his political honeymoon.
---
Extract from an article on 'Breitbart London' from the 6th December, 2015
TEN YEARS AGO TODAY, THE FIRST ACT IN THE DRAINING OF THE WESTMINSTER SWAMP OCCURRED WHEN PETER HITCHENS TOOK THE FIGHT TO THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY GLOBALIST ESTABLISHMENT AND SHOWED THEM THAT THERE WAS POTENTIAL FOR A TRUE POPULIST GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP FOR THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Peter Hitchens' bid, while not successful on that occasion laid the groundworks for his grassroots revolution within the Conservative Party, proceeding to sweep aside the globalist, liberal, bohemian bourgeoisie establishment which had taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party in the period since Mrs. Thatcher fell from power.
The 'New Populism' of the Hitchens campaign, which has spread elsewhere, can be said to hail from the 2005 Conservative Party leadership campaign, when he managed to hold the pro-open borders and pro-free trade establishment candidate, David Cameron to a closer than expected victory among Conservative Party members.
Hitchens led in the two pre-runoff ballots among party Members of Parliament, but was defeated in the final runoff round by a small margin, despite being outspent by the establishment media backed Cameron campaign.
While it may be easy with hindsight to state that the 2005 leadership contest was always destined to be a precursor to the events of the subsequent years, at the time it was generally assumed that the race was to be a ‘gentleman’s’ stroll (in the words of Spectator columnist, Matthew Parris.) The race was the first one to be fought under the new rules, put into place in 1998.
The appointment of several new faces after the 2005 general election to Ancram’s interim shadow cabinet, was seen by some commentators as a ‘try out’ for the leadership race. Michael Howard was kept on as Deputy Leader, but he quickly ruled out his intentions to run for the leadership, as did recent re-appointed Shadow Education Secretary Tim Collins (who intended to spend more time “with [his] constituents” after his close victory in general election, in effect standing down more or less immediately after his reappointment.) Newly appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind announced that he was “quite likely” to throw his hat into the ring. Newly appointed Shadow Chancellor David Cameron was said to have been encouraged by his predecessor in the post, Oliver Letwin, to run for the leadership. Former Chancellor and 2001 leadership runner up Kenneth Clarke, stated that he was “interested” in running for the leadership, though it would be several months before he would decide. Tim Yeo and Theresa May, two frontbenchers in the Ancram Shadow Cabinet announced they were interested in running, but subsequently announced they wouldn’t several days later.
During the many weeks of ‘public soundings’ and ‘public declarations,’ a group of ‘hard-right’ Tory MPs met in the ‘smoke filled rooms’ of the Members’ Bar in the House of Commons. Some of the MPs were veterans of the Conservative Monday Club days, while some were members of the Conservative Christian Fellowship and the newly formed socially conservative Cornerstone Group. Among the group were Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke), David Burrowes (Enfield Southgate), Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire), Peter Bone (Wellingborough), Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury), Julian Brazier (Canterbury), Bill Cash (Stone), David Amess (Southend West), among others. The group were determined to put forward a single ‘true conservative’ candidate for the leadership. Whatmore the possibility of not one, not two, but three socially moderate to liberal opponents splitting the left-wing of the party, ensured that their candidate would progress to the run off vote. It became apparent that those candidates on the right who they had formerly believed to be interested in running, such as David Davis, Liam Fox and Ann Widdecome were either no longer in parliament (Davis), opted to not run (Fox) or were backing another candidate (Widdecome, who was backing Kenneth Clarke.)
---
Extract from ‘Comrade Hitchen’s Coup: The Hard Right’s takeover of the Tory Party’ by Polly Toynbee and Peter Walker (Guardian Books, Farber, 2015)
The roots of the hard right’s takeover of the Tory Party can be seen in the 2005 leadership contest. While the hard right were still licking their wounds after being disaffiliated from the party during the leadership of Iain Duncan Smith, they were in many ways back with a vengeance in 2005. They had had a slate of ‘liberal’ leaders of the party, including IDS, who had each failed to promote a ‘genuinely conservative’ message on social, moral and cultural issues. The ragtag group of hard-right Tories, Moral Majority sorts, and general anti-liberal and anti-progressive sorts were determined to ensure that the party no longer continued along it’s trajectory towards social liberalism. This was seen to hit a roadblock when many on the right-wing of the Tory Party refused to be the standard bearer of the this group, either out of a sense of decency or realisation of the herculean task to not show their true beliefs and intentions. It was from this car crash ensemble that Peter Hitchens emerged as the candidate of the party right-wing.
---
Extract from the 'Daily Telegraph' from the 6th September, 2005
"Ladies and Gentlemen... and of course Comrades!" With those words Peter Hitchens, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Kensington & Chelsea, and newspaper columnist, announced his intentions to contest the leadership of the party. Unlike his opponents, Mr. Hitchens, 53 of Oxford, gave a stark and rather gloomy, yet at the same time jovial announcement speech, as he was flanked by his key supporters. Mr. Hitchens' message is very much different to his declared and expected opponents, being that he is the standard bearer of the party's influential right-wing. Mr. Hitchens announced his platform, which included policies such as a commitment by the party to withdraw from the European Union if it wins the next election, to 'row back on the eurocommunism experiment of the Blair Government' and a general regard for 'tradition and morality' in society - all what we would expect from a right-wing Conservative candidate. What makes Mr. Hitchens peculiar for a right-wing, or even a conventional Tory candidate is his support for nationalisation of various industries, notably rail, and his advocacy of nuclear disarmament, two positions generally held by those on the left of the political spectrum.
Mr. Hitchens' bid is backed by various figures on the party's right wing, such as Andrew Hunter, David Burrowes, Bill Cash and David Amess, as well as various members of the 2005 intake. He is also backed by various groups such as the Cornerstone Group, the ultra-right Monday Club successor group the Conservative Democratic Alliance, as well as the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party and even the UK Independence Party. It is generally predicted that with the party's liberal and moderate wing have multiple candidates contesting the ballot, namely Shadow Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke, and Shadow Chancellor David Cameron, who is expected to announce his intentions to run in the next few weeks, if not days.
---
Extract from 'The New Consensus: At the Centre of the Third Age of British Politics ' by Neil Clark (Bloomsburg, 2020)
At the party conference in Blackpool, in October 2005, we realised that our main challenger for the leadership was Cameron; Rifkind and Clarke would most likely be in a race for third place. In Peter's suite we planned his strategy and speech to the conference. The group of us, which included the candidate, myself as his Chief of Staff, as well as a constantly changing collection of backers. It was decided that the right tone in the speech was one in which he would attack Blair and his Government - with subtle comparisons between him and Cameron. It was a risky strategy, with significant portions of the Tory media supporting Cameron (the Blairite candidate in the race), only the Mail and the Express seemed resolute in their support for an anti-Blairite candidate. In that regard we scored a potential coup with Cameron at a fringe event stating that he was 'the heir to Blair.' This wouldn't sit that well with those Tory MPs who had nearly been defeated in three election defeats by the 'Blair creature' and were uncomfortable with even the mere utterance of his name.
As was to be expected the candidate's speech was received as well as could be expected, considering the circumstances by the Cameroon press. Rifkind and Clarke's speeches were mostly ignored, when they weren't, they were being attacked as 'blasts from the past.' Cameron gave a 'great speech' if the Telegraph is to be believed, though it was received 'well' at best by the conference hall. Leaving the conference we had increased our odds of winning to 7/4, as opposed to Cameron's 5/4 odds.
On the 18th the first ballot came, which produced the following result:
Hitchens: 87
Cameron: 63
Clarke: 32
Rifkind: 24
Unsurprisingly we romped home in a healthy first place finish, Cameron coming in second, and the two 'blasts from the past' fighting over third place; Clarke winning that most coveted of places. The second ballot was held two days later on the 20th. On the day before, Rifkind came out and said that either a Cameron or Clarke leadership would be "brilliant," in other words "anyone but Hitchens." This was good for our campaign, as it bolstered our outsider and anti-establishment message. The result of the second round of voting was as follows:
Hitchens: 96
Cameron: 75
Clarke: 35
The campaign proceeded on rather low key, with Peter being attacked in snide assaults in the Cameron media and was subjected to a rather bloodthirsty attempted character assassination in Private Eye (where he was compared to Niccolò Machiavelli in terms of his facial features.) Clarke came out in support of Cameron, as did Rifkind, Tim Yeo and Michael Howard; William Hague in November wrote in the News of the World in Cameron's favour. Peter gained the backing of the likes of Rod Liddle in the Spectator and Richard Littlejohn in the Mail; though very few political 'bigwigs' - take from that what you will. On the 6th December the results of the Members' Vote was declared. The ballot produced the following result:
Cameron: 112,148 (56.4%)
Hitchens: 86,696 (43.6%)
The result was far closer than we had predicted. Most of our internal polls yielded something closer to 60-40 or even 65-35, some even as low as 70-30. Peter gave a magnanimous concession speech, vowing to keep Cameron and Blair on his feet, telling him that he would be back with a vengeance if Cameron failed to deliver. Personally Peter was rather angry, not at losing, but at the fact that the Tory Party had been turned over to Blairism. He wasn't going to let it happen quietly. He made his feelings very clear when he flat out refused Cameron's offer of becoming Shadow Home Secretary, later altered to Shadow Culture, Media and Sports Secretary, which Peter also refused. He was determined to prevent Cameron becoming Prime Minister, getting together a team in the event that he could challenge him at a later date, when the political winds had changed. They would change, but for that time Cameron was allowed to have his political honeymoon.
---
Extract from an article on 'Breitbart London' from the 6th December, 2015
TEN YEARS AGO TODAY, THE FIRST ACT IN THE DRAINING OF THE WESTMINSTER SWAMP OCCURRED WHEN PETER HITCHENS TOOK THE FIGHT TO THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY GLOBALIST ESTABLISHMENT AND SHOWED THEM THAT THERE WAS POTENTIAL FOR A TRUE POPULIST GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP FOR THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Peter Hitchens' bid, while not successful on that occasion laid the groundworks for his grassroots revolution within the Conservative Party, proceeding to sweep aside the globalist, liberal, bohemian bourgeoisie establishment which had taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party in the period since Mrs. Thatcher fell from power.
The 'New Populism' of the Hitchens campaign, which has spread elsewhere, can be said to hail from the 2005 Conservative Party leadership campaign, when he managed to hold the pro-open borders and pro-free trade establishment candidate, David Cameron to a closer than expected victory among Conservative Party members.
Hitchens led in the two pre-runoff ballots among party Members of Parliament, but was defeated in the final runoff round by a small margin, despite being outspent by the establishment media backed Cameron campaign.
The Hitchmeister comes close to Cammers (whose political star probably rises quicker in the absence of Osborne).
I think I know what'll happen next, but it won't be pretty...
I think I know what'll happen next, but it won't be pretty...
That's actually OTL, unfortunately.
Breitbart London huh? Ouch.
How is the Iraq War going ITTL? Please let Bush's second term go better than OTL
How is the Iraq War going ITTL? Please let Bush's second term go better than OTL