Explain Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. Neither of them look like a Prime Minister, and yet the Tory party membership seem hellbent on foisting either one of those hopeless chancers upon us.
If Kenneth Clarke had won, the Conservative party would have had a much better future. The track record from 1997 to 2005 shows the result of their decision made here in June 1997, supporting William Hague was a disaster.
Clarke talked a good game when he was out of cabinet but whenever he was in it just reverted to tory type. He wouldn't have been much different as leader.
@@thomaspynchon2871 I disagree, I think he had a better connection with the public than Hague. Ken was more liberal of course, but also he was well known by the public, and also his persona was softened by the impressions of him by Rory Bremner and Spitting Image. Hague was a near complete unknown. I feel Ken would have done better, and instead of another thumping defeat in 2001, the conservatives could have gained seats, not won of course, but they would have done a little better than Hague's performance.
@@johnking5174 Clarke was also associated with some of the more successful elements of the Tory party (NHS reform and of course the economy from 1993 to 1997). Labour took his spending plans and even, eventually, his basic views on NHS reform. William Hague, on the other hand, was seen as Tory Boy.
It would of made very little difference in my opinion. After the ERM debacle(which don't forget that Clarke was a massive supporter of) - the Tories were finished, and were effectively out for a generation. There's also the fact that politically he was so close to Blair - you could not really put a cigarette paper between them : big supporters of the Euro, big supporters of the EU, pushing the type of globalised economy and Clarke even later admitted that he thought that devolution was a good idea; where then is there the choice in a democracy if both the PM and opposition leader agree on all the major issues.
That was when I stopped the recorder to change channels over to ITV. There wasn't much more of the programme left - this was a closing montage set to music (music that's so copyrighted they block your video if it's included in the soundtrack).
@@andrewrobinson8305 Every other? That's bollocks. Stop reading the Daily Mail. The BBC is now wall-to-wall Tory run. From the Director General all the way down to the person emptying the bins. The BBC are shit-scared of the Tories defunding them, so they bend over backward to appease Mad Nad.
Funny how those who don't "look" like a prime minister never becomes one. Foot, Kinnock, Hague, Duncan Smith, Miliband, Corbyn... the list is long.
Explain Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. Neither of them look like a Prime Minister, and yet the Tory party membership seem hellbent on foisting either one of those hopeless chancers upon us.
@@jackdubz4247 Neither elected by the public, which I'm guessing is the previous poster's point.
William Hague could’ve been an OK pm, just his voice mostly
If Kenneth Clarke had won, the Conservative party would have had a much better future. The track record from 1997 to 2005 shows the result of their decision made here in June 1997, supporting William Hague was a disaster.
Clarke talked a good game when he was out of cabinet but whenever he was in it just reverted to tory type.
He wouldn't have been much different as leader.
@@thomaspynchon2871 I disagree, I think he had a better connection with the public than Hague. Ken was more liberal of course, but also he was well known by the public, and also his persona was softened by the impressions of him by Rory Bremner and Spitting Image. Hague was a near complete unknown. I feel Ken would have done better, and instead of another thumping defeat in 2001, the conservatives could have gained seats, not won of course, but they would have done a little better than Hague's performance.
@@johnking5174 Clarke was also associated with some of the more successful elements of the Tory party (NHS reform and of course the economy from 1993 to 1997). Labour took his spending plans and even, eventually, his basic views on NHS reform.
William Hague, on the other hand, was seen as Tory Boy.
@@Myndir Shame he never became their leader
It would of made very little difference in my opinion. After the ERM debacle(which don't forget that Clarke was a massive supporter of) - the Tories were finished, and were effectively out for a generation. There's also the fact that politically he was so close to Blair - you could not really put a cigarette paper between them : big supporters of the Euro, big supporters of the EU, pushing the type of globalised economy and Clarke even later admitted that he thought that devolution was a good idea; where then is there the choice in a democracy if both the PM and opposition leader agree on all the major issues.
In the end it didn’t matter
They were both flops and so were all of their successors TO DATE
you know when thatcher counters by backing hague is that ment to carry on from that or no
That was when I stopped the recorder to change channels over to ITV. There wasn't much more of the programme left - this was a closing montage set to music (music that's so copyrighted they block your video if it's included in the soundtrack).
ok thank you for you r comment
hello do you know are you doing general election 2010
@@ryanlamb7945 it's on BBC parliament right now.
Nick Robinson with his Tory chums
Impartially, my arse
As opposed to practically every other BBC pundit being unashamedly Labour or Lib Dem?!
Can hardly begrudge just one of them being a Tory!
@@andrewrobinson8305 Every other? That's bollocks. Stop reading the Daily Mail. The BBC is now wall-to-wall Tory run. From the Director General all the way down to the person emptying the bins. The BBC are shit-scared of the Tories defunding them, so they bend over backward to appease Mad Nad.
Wasn't this on BBC One?
Yes, and there was a clue at the start that I missed.