Saturday, October 01, 2011

Heffer: Cameron is 'not a conviction Conservative'

Writing in his new megablog RightMinds, Simon Heffer articulates succinctly what many of us already know. Or think we know. We cannot know we know because of the present inconvenient variable: we're in coalition, which creates a number of known unknowns. Or unknown unknowns. But of all the rumours circulating about David Cameron's preferred modus operandi, none is doing more damage than the perception that his disposition, habits and policy preferences are more in tune with Nick Clegg than any on the 'Tory Right'; that he actually prefers being in bed with with Liberal Democrats to having to pander to his party's ‘Turnip Taliban’, ‘dinosaurs’ or ‘backwoodsmen’.

Yesterday, Michael Gove continued the Cameroon élite's favoured pastime of deprecating Conservative Party members, by urging his party not to respond to the constraints of coalition 'by doing the things that make the most atavistic parts of our party cheer up'.


Do those Conservatives who favour a return to academic selection in education really represent the primitive instincts and values of their remote ancestors? Is Conservative education policy (which is actually less selective than that pursued under the Blair-Adonis academy plan) more in tune with Liberal Democrat philosophy than with that which inspires millions to vote conservative in order that their children might receive a grammar school education?

A few weeks ago, William Hague wrote: “I wanted a Conservative government. I would have liked to have pursued some of the things on Europe on which we’ve had to compromise. However, I do find the experience of coalition government is much better than many of us feared. This is a more united Government than the one I served in before, which was purely Conservative.”

So, this coalition with the Liberal Democrats is more united than the last wholly Conservative one. Which rather suggests that the core Cameron-Clegg partnership is a meeting of like-minds, a fusion of soulmates, a bedding of the conjugally compatible. It is perhaps a logical and necessary precursor to the 'Red Tory' phenomenon: on the policy spectrum, Orange Tory has to precede it. And as the blue mixes with the orange, you get a rather unattractive shade - vote blue go green.

The problem is not, as Mr Heffer says, that David Cameron is 'not a conviction Conservative'; it's that he's not 'our sort' of Conservative. In the 'broad church', he is what Mrs Thatcher would have termed 'a wet'. And the problem with wets is that they tend to loathe everything that Margaret Thatcher stood for: her style, her manner, her policies, her conviction. They also paralyse the advance of Conservatism with their preference for defeatism over a return to 'ideological conviction'.


Blogger Blackhat said...

Cameron is everything a true conservative is not. He is a swine

1 October 2011 at 09:48  
Blogger uk Fred said...

And that is precisely why the UKIP are doing so well. Until Cam-Moron was elected, there was always the argument, "...but when we have a Conservative government..." CMD has blown away, in how few years, this once great Conservative Party.

1 October 2011 at 10:04  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

The only conviction politics now are found within the small, fringe parties or independents.

The only conviction required to belong to Liebour or CONservatives - and to a lesser degree the Liberals (no need to amend their name, it is an insult in itself) is the conviction to stay in powers & follow orders.

As long as any of us keep voting for the same old merry-go-round of the 3 main political parties then we're doomed. And whilst we have this ridiculous, anachronistic voting system we're always destined to have a government comprised of 1 of the 2 main political parties. We're doomed!!

1 October 2011 at 10:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Was Mrs T actually a Tory? A traditional Tory, I mean. She had elements of it for sure but she was quite radical I thought.

1 October 2011 at 11:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr Cranmer,

We cannot know we know because of the present inconvenient variable: we're in coalition

No, we can know: whatever is wrong with David Cameron was clear from before the election and may well be the reason why he couldn't beat Brown outright. People didn't know what he stood for and that meant they couldn't trust him. But they definitely didn't want Brown either. Hence the coalition is probably a consequence of Cameron's lack of conviction not a cause of it.

The problem is not, as Mr Heffer says, that David Cameron is 'not a conviction Conservative'; it's that he's not 'our sort' of Conservative.

Again, I think Heffer is correct and you are wrong. Dave is a true politician, he's a presenter, he is interested in doing and saying the things that get him elected. His views on abortion, gay marriage etc. are shaped by what he thinks he needs to say in order to get rid of the "nasty party" image. In short, his views are determined by others for him, and he will change them if he thinks others have changed. In that, he is of course, like the vast majority of the population of this country.

1 October 2011 at 11:18  
Blogger graham wood said...

Cranmer is absolutely correct and confirms what real conservatives have known for some time.
Not only has Cameron no convictions on the EU (except to stay in), worse, he is completely unprincipled in that he pretends he will "reform" it so deceiving his own party and alienating it's grass roots.

He and the Tory party fail to understand that the centre of gravity in all EU discussion now has radically shifted. He and his party are irrelevant for it is Germany which holds the key to all current and future EU movements - not Britain.
Ambrose Evans Pritchard senses this: "Germans have begun to sense that the preservation of their own democracy and rule of law is in conflict with demands from Europe. They must choose one or the other"
Cameron fails to see this, or will not, and therefore he will pay the electoral price.
He is a failure in every respect, and it matters little what he or his so called "eurosceptics" mutter about "Europe" at their weekend jolly.

1 October 2011 at 11:27  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


.... and like the vast majority of politiicians too.

Isn't that the flaw of a representative liberal democracratic system? Or, some might say, its strength?

1 October 2011 at 11:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

uk Fred "...but when we have a Conservative government..."

Any doubts about UKIP being the successor to the Conservative party have vanished. What is really remarkable is our hollow man has no obvious successor who can reverse this sad state of affairs. Yes, there are candidates, but none shine out, for if they did, they would surely be demoted.

The Inspector would not like to see the Conservatives go down the same route as the Liberals. Decades of nothing but false hope. Better to wind the party up now and be done with it – for Europhile conservatives, it’s a short walk to the Lib Dems. You types really wouldn’t notice the difference, you know...

1 October 2011 at 11:52  
Blogger Albert said...


Isn't that the flaw of a representative liberal democracratic system? Or, some might say, its strength?

Actually, I think it is damaging to democracy. Firstly, because democracy ought to encourage differing views to be represented. But on so many things - from (say) gay marriage to Europe, the parties are largely agreed.

Secondly, because it encourages cynicism. We all know that we will not agree with everything a leader does or believes in, but we like to think they at least act with principle, rather than just with selfish personal expediency. That's why conviction politicians sometimes do well while convictionless people seem untrustworthy (saying what they think we want to hear) and patronising (while expecting us not to notice).

Dave is a great performer and presenter, and yet still unsuccessful as politician. Surely this is part of the reason why.

1 October 2011 at 11:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace,

Dave is culturally Conservative just as he is culturally Christian. The problem Dave faces is that both he and his wife are so rich it's all just a game.

From time to time reality intrudes, such as the tragic life and death of his son Ivan. But at no point in the progress does Dave find him self in struggle street from a financial perspective. In short, Dave is living proof of the maxim that you have to be very rich to be socialist. And that's what Dave is.

The gritty conservatism and true Conservative belief of Thatcher are something that Dave and his circle would find both vulgar and embarrassingly evangelical, in a political sense of course. Infra-dig and rather common, would be the muttered patrician asides.

Yes, Your Grace has got it right by calling Dave a 'wet'.

He's a very Wet Bob indeed.

1 October 2011 at 12:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Our 'first past the post' representative democracy tends towards the middle ground to the exclusion of minority views.

Conviction politicians, like Margaret Thatcher, probably the only genuine post-war conviction politician, Attlee excepted, quickly become labelled as 'extreme' or 'authocratic'. Look what her party did to her when they smelled election defeat.

Politics is a profession. It's a career nowadays and those in power have selfish ambitions for advancement. Gone are the days when men and women went into it because of a sense of public duty. No wonder the electorate are delusioned and cynical. From local councillors, through to regional assemblies, Parliament and now Europe, there is a good lifestyle to be had.

Combine this with secularism, the reliance on positivism and the departure from moral values in our 'diverse and multi-cultural' society, and you get the mess we're in.

What politician seriously hoping for senior office would stand up today and say: "I'm a Christian; I'm against abortion; against homosexual marriage; (I refuse to use the word 'gay')" and believe in a return to traditional Christian teaching in school"?

What other system is there to replace it? It demands representatives who are honest, principled and committed. And an electorate that demands this.

1 October 2011 at 12:48  
Blogger Atlas shrugged said...

Dave is a great performer and presenter, and yet still unsuccessful as politician. Surely this is part of the reason why.

I am glad to see that someone recognizes Cameron for what seem to me his obvious talents.

Like all highly talented politicians, Cameron is a natural at saying, or most cleverly implying one thing, while actually doing, as well as genuinely believing, the exact opposite.

The most talented deceivers first convince themselves that their lies are true, before trying to convince others that they are.

In this Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, and David Cameron are utterly sublime operators. Not so Gordon Brown, who could not clearly not lie his way out of a wet paper bag, when under any degree of real pressure.

IMO Thatcher did have certain convictions, some of which I myself shared. However the truth about Thatcher was that she was not so much an Iron Lady, but more a highly manipulated ego maniac.

She clearly knew that she was not only not in control any more then a small minority of her cabinet, she never really got to grips with the power of the civil-service, therefore the establishments lackeys, however hard she may have sometimes tried.

Cameron, Clegg, Brown,and Blair on the other hand were agents of the establishment from the very start.

Brown being a relative outsider, but only because he was long since set up to be the establishments fall-guy, when the western worlds economy most inevitably hit the fan.

Cameron, Clegg, and Blair have establishment, quite literally written into their very DNA.

As such they are natural bed fellows; a political threesome of the most deceptive of natures. Which is why they have no understanding whatsoever as to why they should disagree with each other, except within the finest of parameters.

All 3 of these people, and many more besides most genuinely believe that what they do for the people is not only the best they can do, but more then the people deserve to receive.

Often it is difficult to make a credible case against their position. The profane masses deserve what they get, because as a general rule, they are incredibly STUPID.

It is the politicians fault if they con the public once, but it is the publics fault if they allow themselves to be conned a second time. However the majority of the voting public have been out of school long enough to have experienced being viciously conned more then several times.

At least previous generations had existing through 1 or 2 world wars as an excuse for there child like gullibility, what possible excuse do present generations have?

Never during the generally accepted history of mankind, has so much information been so easily available, to so many.

Yet do they even bother to look for, never mind attempt to make any useful sense of it?

On the few occasions I have ventured to enquire as to what people primarily use the internet for, the answers given go in this approximate descending order.

Free porn

Booking holidays, and other shopping activities.

Down loading free music or films.

Accessing Free video games.

Finding our information concerning opening times, or charges for various museums and other forms of entertainment.

Down loading cooking recipes.

Mindlessly pontificating on various political, religious, or sports orientated forums, such as this one.

And last, and very much least.

Finding out important information that they would otherwise never be told, that may have an important baring on the future prospects of themselves, as well as their nearest and dearest.

In short, The Establishment don't just think the public are stupid, they are self-evidently 100% certain that ENOUGH of them are.

1 October 2011 at 13:46  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Atlas said ...
"Thatcher was ... not so much an Iron Lady, but more a highly manipulated ego maniac."

Oh dear .... Earlier point proven!

1 October 2011 at 13:52  
Blogger Albert said...


Sadly I suspect you are right.


On the few occasions I have ventured to enquire as to what people primarily use the internet for, the answers given go in this approximate descending order etc.

How depressing!

1 October 2011 at 14:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem for Heffer is that Cameron is not a nut case.

1 October 2011 at 14:49  
Blogger Preacher said...

Looks like we're stuck with Dave Chameleon & 'Old Nick' Clegg for the foreseable future.
WV deadi, hope it's not prophetic!.

1 October 2011 at 19:49  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Gosh, we're so lucky to have the uncannily post-prescient and years too bleeding late retro-prognosticastions of Mystic Hefferlump...


2 October 2011 at 07:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What those who are behind the E U want are'front men'persuasive, glib, Blair clones.Basically these are men without any conviction prepared to bend and sway with whatever their E U masters demand of them.
Another 'Thatcher' someone with conviction(love her or hate her she stood for what SHE believed in)is the last thing the E U wants or desires.

2 October 2011 at 08:33  
Blogger ZAROVE said...

Some say this system is not at fault, others say it is bit we must carry on if we want Representative Democracy. I ask, why?

I don’t see why new need Politicians. We could just as readily disband parliament and let the Queen and Star Counsil reform to runt he Nation. And don’t yap about Freedom, we have less Freedom with Politicians than they had in the Middle Ages.

18 November 2011 at 07:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older