Thursday, April 01, 2010

Conservatism is a coalition

It was perhaps only a matter of time before the new Tory house journal (ConservativeHome) made a full-frontal assault upon its predecessor, once known as The Torygraph. It has been brewing for quite a few years: back in 2007, Tim Montgomerie was unequivocal that the broadsheet had lost its Tory appeal; and last year he lambasted their political lobby team ‘that leans to the left’.

Now, however, Mr Montgomerie has decided to go ad hominem, criticising some of The Daily Telegraph’s finest political commentators and most eloquent writers of prose.

The latter fact alone ought to have given him pause for thought.

He did not send a private email or phone ‘to have a quiet word’: he chose to use the ConservativeHome platform to publicly reprimand those who profess to be Conservatives but appear to do nothing but carp and criticise David Cameron.

And he named:

Douglas Murray (Telegraph) who argued 'Why the Conservatives deserve to lose'.

Gerald Warner (Telegraph) who declares 'Most Tories hate David Cameron and cannot wait to see him crash and burn'.

Michael Deacon ((Telegraph) who refers to David Cameron and George Osborne as ‘spoilt’ children.

And Simon Heffer (Telegraph – at which point Mr Montgomerie asks if we are noticing a pattern) who called for George Osborne to be replaced by Ken Clarke.

It wasn’t only The Daily Telegraph (though few would deny a ‘pattern’): there were a few delinquents named at The Daily Mail, including Amanda Platell and Peter Hitchens.

All that Tim Montgomerie was requesting, quite reasonably, was for Conservative-minded journalists to cease their assaults on the Conservative Party during this election period. The alternative, after all, is simply five more years of Gordon Brown, and you would think that any Conservative of any hue would prefer David Cameron’s Conservatives to another dose of Newish Labour. And so he exhorts: ‘This close to a General Election is a time for people on the right to weigh their words carefully. Do they really want to help re-elect a government that has taken state spending to more than 50% of GDP? The Cameron-led Conservative Party isn't perfect but this election isn't a choice between a perfect and an imperfect Toryism but between Brown's big state interventionism and David Cameron's alternative.

He reminds the recidivists: ‘There is constructive criticism and there is destructive criticism. There is a time for debate on the Right and a time to either be silent or gun for Labour. At the moment there's too much ill-discipline on our side of the fence.

And he singles out Lord Tebbit for particular disapprobation, because he ‘should know better’.

All of this amounts to ‘ill-discipline amongst the commentariat’ while there is ‘enormous discipline within the parliamentary party’ (or is it intimidation and fear?).

Cranmer is no great fan of The Daily Telegraph: it is his view that the odious Barclay brothers have disembowelled a great institution, reducing it to a petty, spiteful and vindictive rag which is quite intolerant of dissent and now obsessed with tabloid trivia.

But Tim Montgomerie – who is the most pleasant, personable, polite, and well-meaning of people – has out-patricianed the patricians. There is something inescapably patronising and paternalistic about a public rebuke to those who actually do ‘know better’ (and Lord Tebbit, at least, certainly does). It is the patrician-Tory mind-set which seeks to impose discipline upon those who are not ‘on side’. And yet every effort to do so will only have the effect of aggravating the dissent and prolonging the division.

Consider the responses:

Gerald Warner is on top form, with superlative invective and searing wit. He proclaims: ‘Not all of us are prepared to huddle in the Cameronian sheep-pen, waiting to see our ideals slaughtered by a bunch of opportunists and adventurers who have hijacked the Conservative Party.

Douglas Murray gives a most intelligent and reasoned riposte, which merits an honest answer: ‘Why should people have any loyalty to Cameron or the Conservative party? People are loyal to institutions which are loyal to them. It is a reciprocal arrangement.

Peter Hitchens says he deplores ‘the whole idea that journalists sympathetic to a political position or party should be under any “discipline”. What would our comments be worth if they were delivered to obey such discipline?

Lord Tebbit, of course, does not respond.

Because he really does know better.

But then the infallible Telegraph Blogs head-honcho wades in with a snide, self-satisfied, ex cathedra swipe at CCHQ.

And therein lies a clue with regard to the constitution of the Telegraph blogs ‘commentariat’: they are not simply united by a common employer in the Barclay brothers: they are a self-perpetuating cabal of like-minded individuals whose allegiance is to forces far deeper than Tory politics. Note the autocracy, the venomous spite, the girlish immaturity and the glorying in the abuse of power.

And Tim Montgomerie throws down the gauntlet with this challenge:

When just one Telegraph blogger probes the Barclay Brothers I'll respond to your criticisms of Cameroonian message discipline

They will not, of course, because they dare not.

The sadness of this internecine media war is that both sides end up damaging the Conservative Party, which is fully represented by neither intransigent stance and is far greater than any individual, including its present leader. The Conservative Party is a coalition and has been since its inception. From the moment a few Tories and Whigs discovered their common ground, and then the liberals and unionists came on board, the Party became a dynamic force in the world; indeed, the most successful political entity in democratic history. We do ourselves a disservice to mistake uniformity for unity: we can be united in diversity, even during a General Election campaign. And there is something attractive about a party which permits dissent within its ranks and finds space for the individual, eccentric and recalcitrant, for that is the human condition.

We do not have to like each other: that which binds us philosophically is far deeper than superficial emotion.

But we ought to tolerate each other: the Party is replete with people who are not talking to one another because of some thirty-year-old falling-out. But, apart from the chronic, high-profile feuds, few know of them.

The Conservative Party has been shaped by distinctly un-conservative sources and traditions. We live in a world of tensions and mutual exclusions, and conservative orthodoxy is not immutable.

And neither, thank God, is the Conservative Party.

True fidelity to the conservative tradition demands an openness and willingness to learn from others. A commitment to dialogue is not a betrayal or compromise of that tradition, but an act of fidelity to the philosophy of the Father of Conservatism.

And if Edmund Burke were here today, he might just be banging a few heads together.

Or his own against a brick wall.

38 Comments:

Anonymous graham Wood said...

YG The plain fact is that the Conservative party is split wide open ideologically, and Heffer, Warner, Tebbit and others are merely expressing the nature of that split.

Any casual reader of Conservative Home, or similar blogs, such as Guido, or EU Referendum Blog will quickly notice the deep division of opinion about the current leftist ideology that Cameron represents. The split is so deep as to be insurmountable, without a complete change of leadership IMO.

You say: "That which binds us philosophically is far deeper than superficial emotion"

What on earth is that suposed to mean? What philosophy?

I pinpoint just one issue.
Real Conservative want a smaller State, and less intrusion by the State.
Cameron denies IDEOLOGICALLY this concept though he pays lip service to it. His policy of acceptance of EU hegemony over all of our affairs is the fatal flaw.
He accepts the concept of even bigger "state" control, via the EU State which directs huge areas of our nation's life and political policies.
What is worse, is that he consistently refuses to even debate the issues within his own party.
"A house divided against itself..."

But Gerald Warner identifies so much more by way of this yawning chasm within collective "conservative" thinking:

"In anything approaching normal circumstances, the Conservative poll lead would have been 30 points. It would have been that under Thatcher; perhaps even Major; conceivably Macmillan. But the “modernised” Conservative Party is a synthetic, alien, Heath-Robinson construct that is already falling apart. The dictatorial imposition of six A-List candidates, composed of women, ethnic minorities and homosexuals, on constituency associations was the last straw. The majority of the Tory Party hates Cameron and cannot wait to see him crash and burn.
The “cast-iron” lie about the Lisbon Treaty referendum; the endless contradictions on the economy; the insolence towards party workers; the clique dominating the party and lecturing true Conservatives about their outmoded principles; the aggressive complicity with the culturally Marxist PC agenda; the flaky, drama queen women candidates; the sense of entitlement; above all, the sheer, monumental incompetence"

There you have it. Either these things are to be changed, or vast numbers of ex Conservative will vote with their feet until they do.

1 April 2010 at 10:18  
OpenID Michael said...

Just to add, whilst Tebbit hasn't yet responded directly, there has been an editorial entitled 'On Loyalty' put out by the web/blogsite of which he is chairman - and it is robust in its defence. See http://tiny.cc/s9pp0

1 April 2010 at 10:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

‘All that Tim Montgomerie was requesting, quite reasonably, was for Conservative-minded journalists to cease their assaults on the Conservative Party during this election period. The alternative, after all, is simply five more years of Gordon Brown, and you would think that any Conservative of any hue would prefer David Cameron’s Conservatives to another dose of Newish Labour.’

Upon reflection, it is suggested, that what we have here are conservative-minded journalists criticising a Conservative Party invented in response to Blair.

Many conservatives love the Conservative Party so much that they want to put it to the torch and build a true conservative Party:

‘Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing — say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful.

‘The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. For decoration is not given to hide horrible things: but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck.

‘If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.’

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy



The Conservative Party is not great because, under Cameron, conservatives no longer love her.

1 April 2010 at 10:31  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Well said Graham Wood, I can't find fault with what you say. As someone who would love there to have been a Conservative alternative to the nightmare we currently have, I see only 'Blue Labour'.

Definitely UKIP for me, as they actually seem to be what we would like the Tories to be. Before anyone suggests that I am opening the door to five more years of the corrupt bunch we now have, I vote for the party that represents what I believe and NOT tactically.

Sadly though, I think Parliament in its current format, is finished as a credible forum for Government.

1 April 2010 at 10:47  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Whilst I disagree with many here regarding the faith agenda I am not hostile to many conservative “values” like self reliance, economic and political independence and less reliance on the state as a provider. However the idea that the full-on old style Conservatism (for those who want it) can make a comeback is a pipe dream.

The people (if I may speak for them) for a while quite liked Thatcher and Blair and conviction politics. But the events of the last two years have produced such a huge mistrust in the body politic that the electorate rather likes the idea of co-operation between the parties.

My prediction for the election is that the LibDems share of the vote will increase enormously but result in only a modest number of extra seats. This will leave the Tories or Labour, whichever has the largest number of seats, with the predicament that they will not be able to justify another election, so they will have to live with the LiDems for a whole term. I expect the LibDems to receive a fair number of ministerial posts and that Vince will be Chancellor.

The character of this parliament will be like no other. The colossal cuts in the public sector that we all know are coming will cause civil unrest but the “opposition” whoever they are will not be able to oppose them so the public will be faced with a dilemma, that no major party will offer an alternative.

At the end of the next parliament with PR firmly established both UKIP and the BNP and maybe even dormant mavericks like the Socialist Workers Party or a new NF style group will gain cherished seats.

The “people” will be thoroughly fed up with 5 years of austerity with no significant light at the end of the tunnel they could turn to UKIP as they warm to its claim that withdrawal from the EU would free up much needed funds so that public services could be restored.

There we are, its “Fantasy Politics” and I am sure others will find flaws in my argument.

1 April 2010 at 11:09  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Way to go Mr G Wood! The only reason the BNP and Ukip has had the limited success they have, is because the Tories have abandoned patriotic conservatism.

1 April 2010 at 11:10  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Mature cheese. Also agree with your comments, and particularly your last sentence..
I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems that there has taken place progressively and increasingly a revolution in our whole concept of what our Parliament is for.
Of course under EU dominance it is merely a minor provincial forum with very limited powers of policy initiation and delivery - irrespective of what party may be in power.
But the centre of the problem has been put in this highly significant statement:

"Parliament is turned into the instrument of power, instead of being its holder"

Modern parties and leaders are all vying for power, as opposed to the privilege of a temporary trusteeship of powers which belong to the people.
An older view of Parliament was that it existed primarily to safeguard and uphold our Constitution, the laws of England and the liberty of the subject.
This is what we have called for centuries "the rule of law"
The Constitution, properly acknowledged and accepted should be the guarantor of our liberties. All Parliament and the Executive needed to do was to act as stewards of these powers, and to invoke them when necessary.

All that has gone, and governments and MPs believe that Parliament exists to make law arbitrarily, and to ignore the great constitutional checks and balances laid down in our past history - that spells tyranny.

1 April 2010 at 11:14  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Typical, old fashioned ostrich tactics from our post modern political bird-brains. Attack the messenger rather than the problem.

They deserve to lose.

1 April 2010 at 11:52  
Anonymous A Democratic U.K. said...

Whatever happened to concentrating your fire on the common enemy?

1 April 2010 at 11:56  
Anonymous A Democratic U.K.? said...

Oh, stop apologising for being conservatives......you Conservatives!!!!!!!!!!

1 April 2010 at 12:00  
Blogger Gnostic said...

What happens when the party you want to support has apparently joined forces with the common enemy?

1 April 2010 at 12:29  
Blogger Anglichan said...

Well said, Graham Wood.

1 April 2010 at 12:33  
Blogger English Viking said...

What Montgomerie has said sounds awfully like:

'Please stop telling the truth about Cam and the Cons, as people might find out what vacuous liars he and his coke snorting mates are'.

I hope Labour do win, because I loathe them as well. If they win, the pressure valve of so called 'change' will not open and the head of steam building even now in the British electorate, in the form of hatred for professional liars pretending to be politicians, will eventually blow, hopefully taking 'the big three' with it.

Then we might get some change worth talking about.

1 April 2010 at 12:35  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Graham wood has spelt it out far more eloquently than I could have. well said.

1 April 2010 at 12:49  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

One can imagine the mother-of-all-winter-of-discontents we would get if Labour did win. Especially when public sector workers start to lose their jobs. And those still with jobs see how far their take-home pay has dropped.

1 April 2010 at 12:50  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Cameron could have the UKIP (and other) votes overnight if he wanted them. It is entirely up to him, and it is wilful stupidity to blame his predicament on the failings of conservatives at large.

1 April 2010 at 12:55  
Blogger Ray said...

I think this represents a part of society that is secure in their Ivory towers, proof from recession by their high incomes, and safe within their own moral shields. Whereas the rest of us have to run around in the shower of S**t that will emenate from a re elected Brown government. Of course the biggest culprits are the BBC with their vast taxpayers supplied salaries

1 April 2010 at 13:39  
Blogger Preacher said...

I said a long time ago that the failure to be strong over Lisbon would come back to haunt David Cameron like Hamlet's Father, that was the time to return democracy to Westminster with a strong Conservative government that listens to the majority wishes of this Nations people, namely to ditch Europe with its ambition of world domimation by the Blairs, Kinnocks, Van Rumpuys & other assorted monkeys who are busy dipping the tax payers pockets to fund their own greed & force us to pay for our own enslavement. The Daily Express reported last week about the increased powers that have been extended to Europol, couple that with trials held in closed courts & the writing is on the wall. If David Cameron was even a little like Nigel Farrage, he would have thrown this current rabble out months ago, now I'm afraid he's up the creek without a paddle, hoping the current will save him. The problem is that we are all in the boat with him, please God send a rescue helicopter, Quick!

1 April 2010 at 13:57  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

…they [the Telegraph blogs commentariat] are a self-perpetuating cabal of like-minded individuals whose allegiance is to forces far deeper than Tory politics.

I’d guess that Gerald Warner’s allegiances include decency, honesty, respect for authority, traditional family life, patriotism and government by the people. Allegiances that the Conservative Party used to share but has now outgrown.

Mr Warner makes his opinion of the low-life inhabiting the ‘slime-green benches’ on both sides of the Commons crystal clear:

❛We have to rid ourselves of old-fashioned notions into which we have been brainwashed, that the rabble in the House of Commons are our representatives, our public servants, the guarantors of democracy. They are nothing of the sort. In what do they represent us? Have they not trampled arrogantly upon our views and liberties for years, protected by a cross-party liberal consensus?...The brutal truth is that they are the enemy…No section of society has done more to destroy our country than the six hundred odd consensual, complicit villains at Westminster.❜

The Conservative Party used to be pro-British, pro-Christian and pro-democracy. Let it rediscover its true self and we will have no further need of BNP and UKIP.

1 April 2010 at 14:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Mr Rottenborough has put it in a nutshell:

'The Conservative Party used to be pro-British, pro-Christian and pro-democracy. Let it rediscover its true self and we will have no further need of BNP and UKIP.'

Mr Cameron - could walk this election if he wanted to.

When the British people ask for their country back - they are asking for what God gave them in the first place: their dwelling upon the Earth.

1 April 2010 at 15:16  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Well said Johnny Rottenborough - and of course, by extension, Gerald Warner.

1 April 2010 at 15:42  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Yes, Johnny Rottenborough.

Cameron is as deaf and blind to the 'electorate' as Brown is.

1 April 2010 at 16:07  
Blogger Bryan said...

So, political parties are rather analogous to the catholic (universal) Church?

Political parties and Churches are subject to the winds of popular "doctrine" unless grounded in essential ones.

"In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love" is the Augustinian distillation of the Pauline Doctrine which should apply to the Church; to every area of our "public" lives; even, perhaps politics.

The fact that "unity" is based in "essentials" means that there has to be a line, a demarcation, a clear as possible explanation of just what those essentials are. And importantly an understanding that to break with those essentials, those core foundational doctrines, is to break unity with, to loose co-identity with the party. Be it the Church or some other grouping such as a gathering of politically like-minded persons.

For the catholic Church, those true foundational, essential, core doctrines are laid out in the Scriptures. However the visible church is fragmented into many groups who disagree in their understanding and or acceptance of these (and even this concept). But still, each of those separate groups maintain their own internal "essentials". Or at least the successful ones do.

I suspect, from what I read here, that like in the US the major political parties are rather spineless jellyfish that float about the political scene, swaying to and fro in the popular current gobbling up ideas, left and right in an attempt to out-bloat the seas of change that occasionally (and currently) are stirred up by voter discontent.

However there are other creatures in the political seas, some of which are vertebrates. These are much smaller "fringe" creatures, for they nibble away typically at the edges of the bloated jellyfish parties. Meanwhile the jellyfish seek to destroy and absorb them, in stead.

These fringe creatures, even those with repugnant doctrines for backbones are increasingly attractive to voters because they are able, indeed driven, to swim against the stream when necessary and can power along quite speedily when the popular current swings their way.

Fringe creatures thrive in the turbulent waters of voter discontent. But the amorphous blobs of jelly have been around long enough to know, and are betting, that the sea of voter opinion is fickle, and the turgid days of prosperity will soon return, allowing them to resume their lazy ways once again.

The voter's hope is that a coalition of the relatively small vertebrates gang up on, and perhaps even replace, one or both of the jellyfish; or that the jellys "evolve" a spine.

~~~
I apologize for my incomplete understanding of the UK political scene and system, and therefore the reduced applicability of the word picture woven above.

D. Singh, the Chesterton quote is wonderfully appropriate! And I too find Mr. Rottenborogh's summation to be apt and very much to the point.

1 April 2010 at 16:47  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Bryan, your jellyfish analogy works like a charm. Nearly all UK politicians are spinless, poisonous and grasping.

1 April 2010 at 17:27  
Blogger Bryan said...

Gnostic, you've hit on something there.

The jellyfish, whilst seeming to squabble over choice political morsels, combine masterfully in an attempt to block the light of liberty, and to poison the waters with voter apathy.

Or maybe I'm just too cynical.

1 April 2010 at 17:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Every election the same thing happens. Frighten the tribe into toeing the line. I don't buy this any more and there's a greater choice of political products to choose from than ever before.
A hung parliament would be very healthy for democracy and signal the end of the two party stranglehold which is what both Labour and the Tories are scared of most.

1 April 2010 at 17:47  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

"...or that the jellys "evolve" a spine...

Steady on Mr Bryan, there will be some reading this site rushing to bring out the pitchforks and firebrands if you a blaspheming colonist carry on with this sort of heresy.

1 April 2010 at 17:49  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

This may come as a surprise for those that have read my past comments, but I agree with Monty 100%.

If democracy means anything at all then wrong doing and all of the evil nonsense represented by Gordon Brown and his party must not only be punished/humiliated, it must be seen to have been so.

Then and only then can we know Cameron's true intentions. We must first destroy The Red Team, and then destroy The Blue Team if they do not soon prove themselves worthy of preservation.

In other words smash the old boys network that has always been party politics into tiny pieces, one at a time.

I for one still live in hope. For hope is a wonderful thing. The last possible thing we all need now is a hung parliament. For such a thing is in reality no democratic accountability at all, as well as the worst of all worlds.

We can not trust any of our media. this includes the so called right wing bits, as much as the so called left wing bits.

It is simply idiotic or dishonest in the extreme for so called supporters of the Conservative Party to claim that Cameron is unpopular with his party membership. They did after all vote for him by an large majority, against a highly credible alternative candidate. Which is more then Blair, and infinitely more then Brown has ever done.

Whether the establishments placemen in the media like it, or whether this is ultimately a good thing or not, Cameron is very popular within his own party membership.

Cameron's viewpoint is almost a perfect representation of that of the Conservative Parties membership in general. This is certainly the case as far as my personal experience is concerned.

These establishment placemen do not represent conservatives or conservatism in general. Some of these chaps are 'ex' communists themselves. The CP's membership are largely if not entirely made up of homosexuals, old women, mindless young graduates, and public sector employees with time on their hands. Very few self-employed, or small business owners, virtually no married men or women with children, and therefore as good as no one that represents the majority of ever more hard working productive tax payers at all. Very much like the Labour and Lib/Dem parties in fact. Such is the nature of party politics at constituency level.

There are however growing doubts concerning Cameron's intentions towards AGW inspired taxation, as there are about ever rising taxation in general.

1 April 2010 at 18:00  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Messrs Singh, Malcolmson and no nonny—Further to my comment about the Conservative Party having been pro-democracy. Cameron could easily win the election by taking us out of the EU (thus restoring democracy) and yet he will not consider such a move. He is prepared to lose his only chance of becoming Prime Minister rather than leave the EU.

I have asked this question of Lord Tebbit on his Telegraph blog but have received no answer: ‘Who is Cameron taking his orders from?’ I find it deeply worrying.

1 April 2010 at 20:00  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Misplaced party loyalties, a vote that does not support an anti EU voice is a wasted vote.

Cut the cord, release the apron strings, away with the old in with the new, anti EU voices verses the hung lib/lab/con.

Let the old class division unite on common ground.

1 April 2010 at 20:08  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

Warner says the Tory lead in current circumstances should be 30%

This is bonkers.

What will undo the bullingdon tory boys will be reality,and the Scottish people.

You know in your guts, don't you, that you will not get a majority.

1 April 2010 at 20:53  
Blogger David Wheeler said...

I was going to vote ABL (anything but Labour). Now I have been appalled by posters, put up by the Conservative Party, showing a smiling Gordon Brown, saying, (amongst other things), "I let 80 000 criminals go free. Vote for me."
This is a blatant misrepresentation and lie. Gordon Brown did not smile and say that. The most important thing I look for - often in vain - in a politician is truth and integrity. Now I will vote ABC, (anything but Conservative), as well.
The field is thinning out..

David Wheeler.

1 April 2010 at 21:11  
Anonymous Sam the Skeptic said...

I gave up on the Telegraph ages ago. Except for the crossword (and that increasingly looks as if it's been compiled by illiterates) and Matt, it's turned into just another tabloid rag.
But where I do have some sympathy is in the view of its bloggers that the Tory party has abandoned it rather than that it has abandoned the Tories.
Whatever Cameron is he is not a Conservative. Since he was elected he has jumped on every passing bandwagon from global warming to "heir to Blair" to ring-fencing any expenditure that might garnish another couple of votes.
And why, in the name of God and the present parlous state of the nation's finances, is he planning to increase the overseas aid budget and pour even more of my hard-earned tax pounds into the pockets of corrupt dictators and self-serving NGOs?
I don't want another five years of Brown; I have voted Tory (almost) all my life; I cannot for the life of me see how what I am being offered at the moment is going to be an improvement.

1 April 2010 at 22:21  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I like Tim Montgomerie and his approach on con home , in that he has sought quite a wide varitey of opinions and views , and has shown some good editorial skills at key times .
This moment for his E Journal perhaps shows how an outbreak of the cleggs can affect us , when we are in the buildup or the doldrums of a campaign .He mxies with the new media and chatterati so perhaps he sensative to opinion , he does after all have his own views .

Following Ian Dales law shows understanding of outreach and to be honest there are an awfull lot of people who look at what labour (and the Libs) have done to parliament and its traditional relationalship to the electorate , and they need quite of bit of convincing just to get out and vote never mind which party.

The whole political language is a bit vague bar the minority parties , and perhaps he would prefer that some gifted expereinced conservative commentators would not be so precise as the election is so important .
The conservatives are without doubt the best party to set about some important changes which those who see what labour have done must be keen to see put right . They have unfortunately at times in the past had the wool pulled over there eyes due to life in the village and the spurious labour feed systems, but that is changing.

coalitions and consensus are attractive attire until the wind runs out of them and expensive thumb sucking occures so apparent in how the lib dems operate.

I am sure it will pass , rightwingers have an uncanny knack of being unpopular until , witness is uncontrovertable ,the euro in point . David Cameron is quite a robust skilled politician and puts the work in , as do some many other members of his team and I am sure he realises fan clubs have a role, the right can help in keeping him away from the physcophant gurus who dont have to take the flak when he has to take his stands on subjects.

1 April 2010 at 22:33  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

I am sure it will pass , rightwingers have an uncanny knack of being unpopular until , witness is uncontrovertable ,the euro in point . David Cameron is quite a robust skilled politician and puts the work in , as do some many other members of his team and I am sure he realises fan clubs have a role, the right can help in keeping him away from the physcophant gurus who dont have to take the flak when he has to take his stands on subjects.

Dear not a machine

There you go with that BS lazy type rightwingers nonsense.

There was a time not very long ago when supposed rightwingers were pro-EU and supposed left-wingers were Anti-EU.

These terms left and right simply have to go. They are so corrupted of useful meaning they mean nothing at all other then what an individual wishes them to mean.

I have in my time, often the same day, been described as being anything from a swivel eyes trot to a raving fascist. I am neither, not slightly close to anything of the sort. I am a Libertarian pure and simple. As I believe the majority of especially British people are, to a similar or slightly lesser extent.

They just have to be reminded that they are, and helped to understand what a libertarian type of thinking is all about.

Libertarianism was in the past seen as being of the extreme left. It is now seen as being of the extreme right.

Liberty knows no wings. You either have it or you dont. You either believe liberty is a desirable thing or you dont. You either believe in individual property rights, or you believe in collective enslavement.

However Libertarians are not simply a bunch of self-interested fools, they are among the most intellectually sound, and unselfish thinkers on the planet.

They mostly understand that the EMPIRE of ROME was not built in one day, and it sure as hell is not going to fall in one day either, or certainly not peacefully.

Therefore libertarianism is simply a way of thinking designed to help preserve and conserve liberty freedom and justice, therefore individual human consciousness.

Getting back to Cameron. I don't know the man and quite frankly I don't want or need to. I don't trust any of them, and like all top politicians even less then I trust them.

The proof of Cameron's pudding will be in its eating, and for that we will only have to wait a few more very long weeks.

2 April 2010 at 02:28  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I must be a libertarian then. How about that! :)

2 April 2010 at 07:41  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Graham Wood/Mature Cheese et al....an almost consensus! To my mind, a mass Ukip vote would have the Tories jumping over-board and splashing towards the Ukip canoe. Alas, a canoe is a tenuous craft at best; therefor we must somehow repair the abandoned HMS Tory, revictual and make sail!

I was tempted to 'run out the guns' too....but the analogy runs endless...

2 April 2010 at 18:18  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

I - a Labour voter of over 30 years, albeit wearing Toynbee's proverbial nosepeg for Blair (Iraq did for me for good), would be for the fist time in his life, tempted to vote Conservative (we have an excellent sitting Lib Dem MP who will get my vote), were it not that I do not believe Cameron on small government and "localism". The fact is that being in the EU is totally incompatible with either of these desirable states of political being.

2 April 2010 at 20:33  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older