Did Bush actually have the clout to make the official opposition in another country dump their leader?(As it happens, Duncan Smith DID end up getting removed as Tory leader without ever getting the chance to lead the Tories through a general election, so maybe Dubya carried out his threat).

(on edit)having read the linked article...it's clear that Bush's threat was far greater than simply deposing Duncan Smith as Tory leader. Campbell's diaries quote Bush as saying "we will get rid of THEM"...which may mean that Bush was threatening to exterminate the entire Conservative Party. Holy 1922 Committee, Batman!

I wish Jack Straw had had the courage of his convictions and resigned as Foreign Secretary when Blair made it clear he'd sent British troops off to Iraq anyway.

BTW, I wonder how much longer it will be before Blair declares himself a Tory and has done with it. He pretty much backs Cameron on everything his government is doing.

"Nu Labour" meaning he dragged the traditionally centre-left Labour party so far to the right that they became identical to the old Tories. Of course, just as we saw the rightward shift of the Democrats cause the Republicans to move even further right, Cameron's Tories have become the most radically right-wing government we've had since the Restoration.

Removing IDS would actually have done us a huge favour since he's now become our fanatical Secretary for Work and Pensions who thinks it's a "sin" to be unemployed and sick people "fester" on disability benefits.

I have an anti-IDS song in my DU journal.

By the way, he once co-authored an article on 'Compassionate conservativism' with Rick Santorum!

We have the most radical right-wing government since the Restoration so that doesn't surprise me at all. I wish it did.

No, really:

'you wonder how the world survived with that fool in such power'

Well, it didn't survive terribly well!

....that Ian Duncan-Smith was a poor, ineffective leader of the opposition, and such such a lot of Tories would in all likelihood have been very receptive to US republicans urging them to wield the knife.

As it was he only lasted til October 2003 before the Tories booted him out of the leadership in favour of Michael Howard anyway.

And regarding his performance as Work & Pensions secretary, he's he's been bad, but is there any Tory minister who wouldn't be spiteful towards the poorest & most vulnerable in that role? Class warfare on behalf of the rich against the poor is one of the main principles of the current government.

I think you're right that any current Tory would be spiteful against the poorest and most vulnerable (almost the definition of 'right wing', at least nowadays!); but I do think that Duncan-Smith is more sanctimonious and missionary-like about it than most. Most Tories like to kick people when they're down; Duncan-Smith likes to kick people when they're down and also to preach about how it's really very good for people to be kicked when they're down! The 'Centre for Social Justice' (meaning in typical Tory-speak just the opposite) - ugh! I tend, both in politics and in real life, to find those who represent themselves as 'cruel to be kind' more repugnant, and also possibly more effective in achieving their aims, than those who are cruel out of blatant selfishness and don't really bother to pretend otherwise.

Yes, I do remember Duncan-Smith as a weak, ineffective, rather dull Tory leader, which as far as I'm concerned is the best sort of Tory leader to have. Sadly, he is much more effective and articulate now; must be getting useful advice from somewhere.