The usual caveats about margins of error etc. and individual poll results apply. If it proves to be a trend, then the Tories should worry even more than they are now.

Bad as May is, the Tories don't have anyone they could bring in who'd be any improvement.

I had to grapple with me mouse to avoid copying and pasting the whole page, then there's their weirdness with en rules that disappear in their online versions of articles.

I dunno. I haven't seen any comparative polling of the possible contenders for May replacements except within the Tory Party itself. And what little I have seen recently ranked Ruth Davidson as second.

Apart from the fact she's not an MP and might have trouble being parachuted into a seat Down South (she barely managed to scrape a directly elected MSP seat in their last "wave" election up here, and she's apparently been too busy being a telly star to demean herself to hold any constituency surgeries), it's a pretty desperate party that doesn't see through her schtick. She's also in the not too distant past been rather vocally anti-Brexit, though she always has other principles if you don't like her ones of the moment.

It's an even more desperate party that flails around between thinking Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg constitute the answer to all their problems, of course.

n/t.

Last edited Fri Oct 13, 2017, 06:42 AM - Edit history (5)

I can't see Tory MP's, let alone Tory activists accepting somebody even vaguely non-loony like Phillip Hammond.

Boris Johnson is unfit to run a bath, let alone a government department, and his backstabbing has alienated a fair few people. Same goes for Michael Gove.

David Davis is failing catastrophically in his current job. Jeremy Hunt is not a good health secretary. Amber Rudd is not a good home secretary, and has a wafer thin majority in her constituency. Not only is Liam Fox terrible at his job, he should never have been let back into government after having previously being forced to resign over a nepotism scandal.

Jacob Rees Mogg is virtually a parody of Tory MP, has no ministerial experience and is also a complete idiot. Dominic Raab's name has also been mentioned, which is concerning as he may be an even bigger idiot!

Denzil may possibly be preoccupied with the idea of Ruth Davidson as Tory leader, but I don't think English Tories would accept her for a number of reasons, not least of which being that she isn't a Westminster MP.

Even though Theresa May is an atrocious PM, the alternatives are all really bad. My recommendation to Tories would be to forget about the willy-waving rubbish and concentrate on the basic stuff. Even if that means revoking article 50!

Last edited Fri Oct 13, 2017, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Not preoccupied so much, but bemused at how high her rankings are whenever her name's allowed in one of these intra-party UK-wide polls, on the basis of a very slim résumé.

She may have jockeyed the Tories into some seats in Scotland on the back of blatant unionism, but there's less scope for that tactic in the rest of the country. File her as another yappy current media-darling clown in a party of clowns.

...if she isn't in Westminster.

Also worth remembering what English grassroots Tories are like. They resented Scottish politicians during the Blair / Brown years and that won't have gone away. Some will resent Davidson's sexuality, and most will despise her for not being anti-EU enough for their tastes. Grassroots English Tories may loathe the SNP, but that doesn't make other Scottish politicians all that much more acceptable to their tastes either!

Grassroots Tory activists are going to want a hard right Brexshitter when May goes. If Andrea Leadsom had not pulled out of the leadership contest last year we might well have that instead of Theresa May.

All you say about her background and the (aged) Tory grassroots is what I'd assume - some in the media and a few of the flailers may be drawn to the idea of a "kickboxing, lesbian Army Colonel (Honorary)" (yes, that's a direct paraphrase of the media buzz, and one she's embraced) as some sort of breath of fresh air, but even in those terms the shine has started to come off her, with one RW pundit on a recent TV newspaper headline roundup dismissing her as a "Twitter personality".

I've long held that nobody with a non-southern English/RP accent (never mind their background) is likely to be elected PM - see Gordon Brown!

Also, the few recent decent-sample-size polls we've had in Scotland have shown consistent gains for the SNP since the election and a marked reversal for the Tories, now either trailing Scottish Labour again or neck and neck with them. The reality of the parlous quality of their MPs who've taken over the seats, persistent scandals about some of their "colourful" backgrounds, and the paper tiger performances by their MPs at Westminster after all the brave words about "standing up for Scotland" and refusing to be mere lobby fodder have not gone unnoticed.

Leadsom, thankfully, doesn't seem to have much impetus nowadays. I'm not ready for any of the current contenders to lead the country over the cliff, but the prospect of someone whose politics resemble the US Tea Party and has been a UKIP bright hope in the past taking over the reins doesn't fill me with cheer.

I think that part will change as people search for an "authentic" politician who is different to the currently fashionable chancers like Rees Mogg that we have at present. But that change has to come from outside the Conservative party, which is so far away with the fairies that it faces a major task just to stop becoming a parody of itself!

It's not something I concluded as a result of SNP influence or where I've lived the last 30 years or so - I felt that way before my politics and circumstances took any such turn (since Kinnock, I think), and it's not restricted to the Tories.

There were many reasons to reject Brown as PM, of course, but I don't think the stereotype of a dour, growling Scotsman helped!

I just misclicked on my post after the page refreshed. The message came up:

Well, why the hell not? Shoddy coding, Skinner.

In addition to Ruth Davidson not having a seat at Westminster, there's the fact that most English Tories simply haven't heard of her.

I've no idea on what you base that statement.

Please don't make me defend her credibility as a leadership contender, but I'll wager most English Tories certainly have, for better or worse, not least because at the Tory conference May latched on to the Tories' (shortlived? ) revival in Scotland as her consolation prize for the otherwise dismal showing in the snap election. Here's the most recent poll of Tory Party members:

Here's a roundup of other similar polls (most tend not to include her because, yes, she's not an MP, but when they do, she tends to poll in the mid- to high teens, in Opinium's results at least):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Polls_of_Conservative_Party_members (you'll need to paste that URL into your browser - pesky Wikipedia links)

...after Nicola Sturgeon.

And it's worth remembering that Conservative party activists do know some stuff about their own party. I may not credit them with many things but I will credit them that much.

Can "Strictly" be far behind?

Though it was alarming how few people in Scotland polled as knowing who Kezia Dugdale was even during the time when she was on telly every night telling us how awful the SNP was and the Tories looked like a fair bet in certain seats *wink wink* during the last election. If you're relatively immersed in politics, it can come as a surprise how little consistent attention some folks pay to it. That's maybe why we're in the mess we're in!

But I'd agree, your average Tory member (a grisly mental image after a heavy supper) is probably quite clued up about the doings of the party.

Not wishing to up Davidson's profile even more, but apart from the self-inflated mythology that's built up around her as an "SNP Slayer" etc. etc. (just don't show her the latest polls up here), I suspect one reason she polls relatively well among Tories at the moment is because she fits the profile in the poll I mentioned down yonder in my "sidetrack" reply:

My impression is that Wesminster Tory types simply wouldn't be aware of her. They re unaware of many things.

in terms of her "credibility as a leadership contender", since you claimed "there's the fact that most English Tories simply haven't heard of her". That's not a fact. When she's included in the polls of Tory members, she generally matches or beats Rees-Mogg!

Look down this thread, and you'll find a number of us who are directly exposed to UK media on a daily basis (heaven help us) who disagree with your impression.

Whatever other problems she has (don't get me started), brand recognition isn't among them.

n/t.

She had a big spot at the Tory conference. But, as much of the Tory base is both homophobic, and in many cases suspicious of anyone who isn't *English*, she has very little chance of becoming leader,

I was working out to a stereotypical view that Westminster Tories would see everything through an Anglocentric point of reference.

I said "I haven't seen any comparative polling of the possible contenders for May replacements except within the Tory Party itself".

On looking around, there doesn't seem to have been any polling done at all about whether anyone but May would perform better in a match-up against Corbyn.

I did find this:

For context of the poll mentioned in the OP, here's a roundup of polls since June of May v. Corbyn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#May_vs_Corbyn

May's generally been ahead, but they're tied in the latest YouGov/The Times poll.

The same sort of roundup for Tory v. Labour:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2017

It's trending to more or less neck and neck still - +/-3% isn't safely outside the margin of error for most polls. In terms of a real GE result, given the way our electoral college usually works, Labour would need to be significantly ahead percentage-wise in order to stand a chance of winning a majority.

'Jeremy Hunt is not a good health secretary' = understatement of the century.

As regards Ruth Davidson: the Tories are grudgingly grateful to her at the moment because the unexpectedly high showing of Scottish Tories saved the party from complete defeat at the General Election; but the Tory base are NOT going to go for a Scottish lesbian as leader. One of the big things they held against Gordon Brown was that he was Scottish; and at least he was an MP in Westminster.

Jacob Rees Smugg is soooo 1831 as an MP; the 1832 Reform Act should have put an end to people like him!

Very unlikely to replace Mrs May:
1. Not English (the last non-English Tory PM was Bonar Law!)
2. Not straight
3. Not an MP (how easy would it be for her to win a by-election? Even in a safe seat - for a start reasons 1 & 2 would alienate a lot of Tory voters down south).

Even by Tory standards this is an extra-ordinarily untalented government. And yet most of them have good degrees from Oxbridge. How does that happen?

...I think that Davidson's sexuality would be far less of an issue than her views on leaving the EU, which would make her totally unacceptable to grassroots Tories.

Tory activists are for the most part wildly anti EU and therefore not inclined to support anyone who doesn't back leaving the EU at any cost to the hilt. That's a major reason why it is difficult for any suitable replacement for Theresa May to emerge out of that bunch of clowns.