Airstrip One

Domestic Politics Intrusion

Is IDS finished? Probably, but how about a slightly conspiratorial view?

Firstly we have to assume that IDS's rather dramatic rise was either the result of above average tactical skill, or advisers with the aforesaid skill. Secondly we have to assume that he has kept enough of his marbles or his advisers to have retained this. This is not to say that he has charisma or is a skilled parliamentary performer, just neither as nice or dim as he appears.

We should then look at the effect of his words (and the ferrocious briefings), in that they are heightening anger among his parliamentary opponents and increasing loyalty among the grassroots. Let's assume that the general effect would have been foreseen when the decision would have been (that tactical skill here) and therefore as he chose to speak out when he could have kept quiet then the effect was deliberate.

So what are the likely effects of this state of affairs, and why would they be beneficial to IDS? Well the big question is whether the dissidents will move. If they don't (which is most likely) then they will be humiliated. They've been left very little wriggle room to pull out of this. After all both the Pensioner and the Spaniard have a record of making loud threats and chickening out during the Major government. Why not again?

However there may be another outcome, and the dissidents may be incensed enough to challenge a sitting leader knowing full well that the last word will go to the party in the country. The most likely outcome would be that any sitting leader would crush an opponent in this case, particularly if the opponent was more pro Europe and socially liberal. Not only would he humiliate the dissidents, but also generate acres of free coverage. Under party rules he cannot initiate a Major style "back me or sack me vote" without completely standing down, that doesn't mean he can't get someone else to do it.

The IDS camp have been talking about a Clause 4 debate for IDS to take on the party. For a year this was assumed to be taking on the "traditionalists", but this would have been a lot of work for little reward as the modernisers started on insisting on sillier and sillier ideas such as expelling Norman Tebbit or supporting gay marriage. Now, if the above analysis is correct, the tack has been changed after the conference. The modernisers will never be satiated and there are now easier dragons to slay.

While the biggest problem for the Labour Party was the perception of economic incompetance - symbolically fought off with the repeal of clause 4 - the Conservative's problem is with division and back biting. This is why IDS is seen as finished in Westminster, as the Tories are now divided. However a massive mandate from his own party could transform things.

Of course there are a few possible flaws in this analysis. Perhaps IDS is not tactically astute and has not foreseen this, and is simply sleepwalking. Perhaps the party will vote against him, or by a smaller margin or the MPs won't let him through to the party membership.