Monday, November 14, 2011

UKIP and the suicidal spirit of Kilroy

Have you noticed that UKIP is about to replace the LibDems as the UK’s third party? Apparently, they are now regularly polling a 7 per cent approval rating, just a tantalising single point behind the LibDems. This is being attributed (not unreasonably) to the refusal of the three main parties to offer the electorate a referendum on EU membership. It’s more than that, of course: now that the LibDems have made it to government – and been seen to be as willing to break their promises and sell their souls as all the others – UKIP has become the natural depository of disaffected votes, at least Tory ones.

Have you also noticed that most Conservatives tend to give UKIP a high degree of credibility and treat the party with respect? Not all, of course: there is not quite praise and adulation for every member, but there is frequent appreciation of the Party’s principal aim(s) and objective(s), if not of their political strategy. When they speak on immigration, it usually makes sense; when they delve into economics, there is reason; when they talk on education, they strike a traditional Tory chord. The problem, of course, is that their very name identifies them with a single issue - indepedence from Brussels - and the British public tend not to want a pressure group to form a government.

But have you noticed that this respect is never reciprocated? When UKIP refer to Conservatives, there is invariably a sneering contempt and scarcely-concealed loathing in their comments and reports. The Conservatives are ‘traitors’ who ‘betrayed’ the country and ‘deceive’ the electorate. Perhaps some did and do, but it is an irrational prejudice to tarnish an entire movement because of the actions of a few. A prominent and powerful few, no doubt. But a few, nonetheless, who have led and still lead a party of patriots, not traitors. Such language brings to mind the speech made by Robert Kilroy Silk when he joined UKIP’s ranks: the UKIP objective, he proclaimed, was to kill the Tories. He said back in 2004 that the Conservative Party was redundant and dying: “Why would you want to give it the kiss of life?" he asked. "What we want to do is kill and replace it. That is our destiny."

Sadly, for Him, others didn’t share his teleological interpretation of the political apocalypse. Nigel Farage didn’t wish to surrender the leadership and so Mr Kilroy Silk waltzed off in a hissy fit because he couldn’t get his hands on the crown. And it’s a crown that rests uneasily upon any other head.

Of course, some Conservatives treat UKIP as a bunch of lightweights, dilettantes, gadflies, eccentrics and closet racists. Even their own founder, Dr Alan Sked, has been scathing about his erstwhile colleagues and has not infrequently advised the public to be grown-up and vote Conservative. But how many members of UKIP are able to grasp that their only hope of achieving their ultimate objective is to re-join the ranks of the Conservative Party? There are quite a few Conservative members (even a majority) who favour total withdrawal from the European Union, and want a referendum. And those who do not certainly want a fundamental renegotiation of that ‘relationship’, the very proposal which enabled many of the 81 Conservatives to rebel against their party whip a few weeks ago. Withdrawal or renegotiation clearly attract a majority of Conservative Party members and a not insignificant minority of Conservative MPs. The reason UKIP scored 16 per cent in the last euro election is because that campaign is gradually becoming a referendum on EU membership: it is the one election when Britons feel they are voting on Britain's ‘relationship with Europe’. It is not (yet) the case that disaffected Conservatives are anywhere near to giving UKIP their first MP, but it is undeniable that the difference between a creditable Conservative result and a good one is the extent to which UKIP can lure eurosceptic voters who would normally support the Conservatives.

Nigel Farage, a ‘true Conservative’, has often said that the function of UKIP is to be the conscience of the Conservative Party. This is nonsense, for a conscience is consubstantial with the carnal: it is not a separate and divided entity, poking and prodding, carping and criticising from beyond the body; it is one and indivisible. According to James Delingpole, “The moment the Conservatives start behaving like proper Conservatives again — Eurosceptical, small government, low tax, etc — that’ll be it. Most of the 7 per cent of voters who are currently Ukip’s will be straight back into the Tory fold and we’ll have a proper, Thatcherite government again doing the Lord’s work.”

Dellers is deluded if he thinks this is how politics works: the Conservatives will only ‘start behaving like proper Conservatives again’ when the right arm, the right hand and the right foot cease their childish bid for corporeal independence and decide to reacquaint themselves with their equal and opposite limbs. We are one body. If the right foot should say, “Because the left hand will not scratch my itch, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if the right ear should say, “Because the left eye will not see as I hear, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. If the whole body were a right eye, where would the left sense of hearing be? If the whole body were a right ear, where would the right sense of smell be? But in fact history has placed the parts in the Conservative body, every one of them, just as it ought to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

The right eye cannot say to the left hand, “I don’t need you!” And similarly the head cannot say to the left foot, “I’d rather have a LibDem prosthesis than you!” On the contrary, those left parts of the body that seem to be ideologically weaker than the right are indispensable, and the parts that the right thinks are less honourable should be treated with special honour. And the parts that are unpresentable should be treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. History/Burke/God put the Conservative Party together, occasionally giving greater honour to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honoured, every part rejoices with it.

UKIP should not treat the Conservative Party with contempt, but acknowledge it as part of the same body. The party has been a broad church coalition since its inception, and it veers from left to right in accordance with the character disposition of its leader. The departure of the Whiggish arm leaves the Tory body weakened, rather like the Pope’s Ordinariate drawing traditionalists out of the Church of England. Of course these digits and limbs have to be free to amputate and extricate themselves, but there is no doubt as they depart that the fulcrum of the via media shifts: equilibrium becomes disproportionately weighted; balance turns to imbalance.

Most UKIP activists are fully aware that they will never form a government: they want only to hold a dagger at the throat of the Conservatives, and some are desperate for a kill. They do not seek negotiation or reasoned compromise; their pathology yearns for blood. The spirit of Kilroy moves among them, for even if they were offered an electoral pact, they would decline it, referring to David Cameron’s ‘cast-iron guarantee’ with the refrain ‘you can’t trust a Tory’. And so they plough on with their principled conservative position, oblivious to the fact that they need to persuade and form a coalition with lesser-principled Conservatives to achieve their desired outcome. They won’t, of course, because they have become entrenched in visceral hatred and loathing for the rest of their erstwhile body. They are content to swing 5-10 per cent of the electorate for a symbolic poll result, rather than rejoin local Conservative associations, get elected on to executive bodies and vote for eurosceptic officers who will hold their parliamentary representatives to account. But that’s too much like hard work.

Every percentage point swing away from the Conservatives is sufficient to hand some of their MPs notice of redundancy. 7 per cent will hand rather more their P45s. 16 per cent is electoral oblivion for them and perpetual power to the Europhiles. It is one thing to be principled to agitate, but without the capacity for compromise and coalition, there can be no power. Without power, one can never effect change. UKIP should exorcise the spirit of Kilroy and rediscover its Conservative roots: it is not too late to re-attach a few chilled limbs to the life-giving warmth of the body. We are nearing that time when the right hand, right eye and right foot will be vindicated. If the super-objective is to address the issue of European Union, don’t waste time trying to kill the Conservative Party: it is immortal because, from time to time, it still beats with the conservative heart of the British people.


Blogger Gawain Towler said...

Your Grace,

Please allow me to demur. You, like Mr Dellingpole are half right, but not entirely so. The scream of violent triumph of Mr Kilroy-Silk was in a large part the reason why he did not win the UKIP leadership back in 2004. The membership recoiled in natural small c conservatism against such vaperings. His wonderful character may also have had something to do with it.

But you do UKIP a disservice. We do not as a party see the destruction of the Conservatives as the key to our success.

We do believe that the Tory party is not to be trusted on Europe. That is true. And when you look at the track record of that party then it is easy to see why. The last 20 years has been a litany of false promises and weasel words from the Conservative leadership. We do believe that as you point out probably a majority of Conservative members share with us a belief that this country would be best served politically, economically and also morally if we were able to set our own course, profit by our own efforts and take responsibility for our own failings.

However as you and others have often noticed the Conservative Party as it is currently constituted will not, can not offer this.

Instead it is hidebound, both by its leadership and its coalition partners into both acquiescence with the European Union, and at times active support of its aims. It was the Tory Group in the European Parliament after all that supported the creation of the EU's three financial regulators; they were not forced to by their Lib/Dem allies.

So pardon me if I am not convinced by your arguments.

Secondly you, and Dellars and Osborne et al, seem to think that if UKIP was to disband then it would return to some mythical home in the Conservative Party. That is just not true. Many of our activists, and much of our leadership is not Conservative in the way that you think. They are not adjuncts to Cameron's party. They are not severed limbs from the Tory body politic that can be stitched together by some magical surgeon on the NHS.

They hold the Conservative party to be an root cause of much of what is wrong with society. They will not meekly move to the Tory party.

So what to do? If we wish to see our ambitions realised.

You favour entryism. We do not. We believe that the only language that the political elite in this country understand is naked electoral arithmetic. If we threaten their jobs (and yes that is Labour jobs too, remember that UKIP won in Hull and Hartlepool in the 2009 elections not natural Tory territory) then they might listen.

You may recall the White March in Belgium after the ghastly Dutroux case. Famously the then Justice Minister of Belgium watched the 200,000 marching through Brussels demanding change and clean politics.

He looked at their white flags and laughed. The leadership of the demonstrators made in clear that they were calling for better government, not a change of Government.
"We have nothing to worry about", he said "they are already waving the white flag".

If UKIP were to disband and try the entryists route the feeling from the Tory High Command, (and Labour's too) would be that we had surrendered, and that nothing would need to be done.

Who governs this country is a very serious thing indeed.

14 November 2011 at 10:26  
Blogger graham wood said...

"But how many members of UKIP are able to grasp that their only hope of achieving their ultimate objective is to re-join the ranks of the Conservative Party?"

In the now famous (or infamous) words:

NO !

NO !

NO !

14 November 2011 at 10:28  
Blogger Curmudgeon said...

What you fail to recognise is that many people engage in politics out of a sense of principle, not a desire for power at all costs.

For example, many would never under any circumstances give their support to a party that supports the smoking ban, which has ruined thousands of lives and ripped the guts out of the pub trade.

14 November 2011 at 10:42  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
It is not often that I find it difficult to agree with you. For fifty years I have been a supporter of the conservatives but it is with regret that I feel no longer able to support them. The Party no longer represents the moral majority of this country and seeks to please the vocal minorities of society.
I further find it hard to accept your analogy of the body of Christ with that of the body of the Conservative Party. My scripture tells me "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire".
An old and worn out vessel is of no use. "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse".
We must realise that The Conservatives are virtually beyond redemption. It is an old but true adage that you cannot minister upwards. If the head is corrupt, then so will be the body.
A new creation is needed.
Lets watch this space.

14 November 2011 at 10:55  
Blogger Jon said...

I can see the attraction of your position for one who prizes loyalty to the party as much as you evidently do. I disagree though.

You yourself have written in the past of the futility of local Tory associations under Cameron, and have quoted Norman Tebbit saying the same thing. Why, therefore, should UKIP members submit themselves to the same powerless structures only to watch in impotent fury as the issue which they care about is ignored by their leadership.

I'm not a UKIP supporter, but I can see why they're doing what they do. If they start polling 7% across the board, they can deny the Tories wins in marginal constituencies. This ought to encourage the Tory party to appoint locals with a Eurosceptic bent or lose to Labour or the Lib Dems. They can effect far more change outside of the party than they can inside of it. Eventually, they won't need to kill the Tory party, because they will have forcibly established a sizeable Eurosceptic body inside of it who are prepared to defy the executive in support of principle and will therefore have provided a powerful "nudge" to the right that they feel the Tories need.

14 November 2011 at 11:12  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Many UKIP members, particularly long-standing members, regard Ted Heath as a traitor, and if they had gained power whilst he was still alive would have done their best to put him on trial. Whilst attitudes to newer more Euro-sceptic Tories is softening, the attitude to those who have been party to transferring parts of our Sovereignty to the EU remains unchanged, they are simply Traitors to this country.

14 November 2011 at 12:09  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Party politics is a stinking corpse full of maggots and worse unpleasantries, Your Grace. What on earth would I want to vote for that?

14 November 2011 at 12:12  
Blogger UKIP said...

"The Conservatives are ‘traitors’ who ‘betrayed’ the country and ‘deceive’ the electorate"

Truth hurts:

"Every percentage point swing away from the Conservatives is sufficient to hand some of their MPs notice of redundancy"

Aw diddums - the Tories are losing share in the political marketplace.

14 November 2011 at 12:47  
Blogger Hereward said...

The destabilising events in Europe and the levels of economic fallout drifting in our direction will dramatically improve UKIP's electability.

14 November 2011 at 13:06  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Sometimes divisions become so profound they cannot be contained within the 'via media'. Schism inevitably follows.

The Conservative Party needs to decide whether it is for Europe or not. And if it is, just what form of Europe. Until it does it cannot form an alliance with UKIP who have a clear and uncompromising position.

Maybe those Conservative MP's supporting UKIP should be honest and leave to form a new party. Or are they afraid of losing their cosy Parliamentary seats and associated benefits? It is clear where the Party leadership stands and the influence they wield in appointing prospective candidates ensures their line will succeed within the Party.

Time to decide - the Conservative Party or the Reformed Conservative Party?

14 November 2011 at 13:19  
Blogger DaveR said...

"But in fact history has placed the parts in the Conservative body, every one of them, just as it ought to be... History/Burke/God put the Conservative Party together"

On the contrary, the Conservative party was not designed by divinity or historical fate. It is a human organisation, as fallible and as impermanant as any other.

Even if UKIPpers joined local conservative constituencies they'd exercise very little influence in the face of Central Office. But more to the point, neither they nor anyone else has any kind of obligation to support the Conservatives. Party loyalty is not a moral issue.

14 November 2011 at 13:48  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

"There are quite a few Conservative members (even a majority) who favour total withdrawal from the European Union, and want a referendum."

Being engaged to a guid Scots lass(an Alex Salmond groupie, no less) I wonder if this referendum of Cranmer's is for England only. Do the Scots get to vote separately? I believe I've asked this question before and been met with a deafening silence.

14 November 2011 at 14:08  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

But how many members of UKIP are able to grasp that their only hope of achieving their ultimate objective is to re-join the ranks of the Conservative Party?

If UKIP members joined the Conservative Party they, as ordinary members, would be unable to influence the party’s pro-EU stance. As members of UKIP, however, they contribute to a party that, by taking more and more votes from the Tories, confronts the Tory leaders with the choice of altering their policy on Europe or never holding power again.

Knowing they can take the votes of loyalists like Your Grace for granted, Tory leaders have been able to eviscerate the party and turn it leftwards. By giving your unwavering support, you are killing the thing you love.

14 November 2011 at 14:27  
Blogger Temporary said...

As Hugh Gaitskell said back in 1962: "The Tories have been indulging in their usual double talk. When they go to Brussels they show the greatest enthusiasm for political union. When they speak in the House of Commons they are most anxious to aver that there is no commitment whatever to any political union." That was 49 years ago!

It’s tempting – for reasons of tribalism or because “the others haven’t got a chance” – to vote for the three oldest parties, including David Cameron's Tories. But doing so means that the most important questions – the economy, the health service, immigration, our energy supply, how we treat the environment and how we trade with the developing world – will more and more be answered by people in Belgium whom one cannot elect or eject. A vote for the Tories is, therefore, ultimately a vote to disenfranchise oneself (even if in 2010 it felt seemingly rational to vote to remove the villain of the day, Mr Brown).

14 November 2011 at 15:48  
Blogger Oswin said...

The possibility/probability of transposing UKIP votes to Conservative votes is one thing; to transpose UKIP votes into Conservative MP's is quite another thing altogether.

Perhaps some such transmogrification will emerge from the ensuing chaos of Europe; at which vortex, all bets are off.

14 November 2011 at 16:21  
Blogger Jon said...

Corrigan - why would the Scots be given a separate vote?

I wasn't aware that Salmond had called, let alone won, his referendum yet?

14 November 2011 at 16:34  
Blogger Berserker said...

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Henry 4 got rid of the narcissistic Richard 2 - Tony Blair anyone? Is he not a dead ringer for the unfortunate Richard?

Who's to wear the crown? Brave Tory MP's should join UKIP but would they share with Mr Farragel? They might have enough seats to act like the Greens in Germany and look how powerful they've become and they were basically a one trick pony.

14 November 2011 at 16:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

UKIP is the illegitimate child of a Conservative party that played fast and loose with its own sacred morals. Instead of welcoming debate the Conservative leadership put their hands to their ears and closed their eyes. And to what – the very idea the UK could survive without being joined to France and Germany. That’s the real contempt - that this still great island of ours and our magnificent people are finished and somehow need ‘assistance’ from abroad. The very idea is an outrage.

As with all illegitimate children, it has its eyes on its inheritance: the centre, right of centre and right vote, but inheritance is not going to be easy. But here’s a gift, Cameron in charge. Are the rank and file thinking conservatives pleased with his mediocre performance…

So here’s the deal. Allow each conservative to BE A MEMBER OF UKIP TOO ! Yes, a member of two parties. At constituency level they would have to vote amongst themselves as to whether to field a Conservative candidate or a Conservative-UKIP candidate. If successful, their MPs to elect the Prime Minister themselves. It’s the only way to stop the vote being split.

It would re-invigorate Conservative party membership, as people rush to join to have their vote on the all important constituency choice – now there’s democracy for you, what !

(…We’ve seen this arrangement before somewhere – Yes, Labour Co-op MPs…)

14 November 2011 at 18:11  
Blogger bwims said...

All very well, but the current conservative party consists of a Tory right wing and a Whig left wing, which in itself was split, the "real" left wing of the Whigs becoming the Liberal party. I don't see why it would be inconsistent for the remaining right-wing Conservatives to form a new Tory party with UKIP, leaving the left-wing rump to form a new centre party with the Lib Dems (themselves being left-wing Whigs conjoined with right-wing Labour part )

The problem with this country right now is that there is no right wing party, and until such a split occurs, there never will be. The current leader is some kind of transvestite socialist.

14 November 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger bwims said...

Should have said:
(themselves being left-wing Whigs conjoined with right-wing Labour party {social democrats} )

14 November 2011 at 18:34  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

"I am a Liberal Conservative." So said David Cameron, not for the first time, during his warm-up act to the EU referendum debate. And, of course, he is. For a very long time, the Conservative Party has been defining itself by hoovering up Liberals: Liberal Unionists, Liberal Imperialists, National Liberals, Alfred Roberts's daughter, those around the Institute of Economic Affairs (although its founders and its founding backer, like Roberts, never actually joined), and now the Liberal Democrats.

The Conservative Party is itself therefore two parties in one, which would be entirely separate in many other countries, competing hardly at all for the same votes and co-operating hardly at all on any issue of policy. The metropolitan, urban, capitalist, secular, libertarian, make-the-world-anew party has finally defeated and banished the provincial, rural, protectionist, church-based, conservative, mind-our-own-business party. The Whigs have finally defeated and banished the Tories, just as they have finally defeated and banished the Radicals. This side of electoral reform, anyway.

Cameron and his courtiers have now told the Tories frankly to clear off to UKIP and lose their seats, probably to the Lib Dems who would most obviously benefit from a split Conservative vote under First Past The Post. Then again, most and possibly all Lib Dem MPs seeking re-election in 2015 are expected to do so as "Conservative and Liberal Democrat" candidates with no Conservative opponent, recalling the "Conservative and National Liberal" candidates of old, and the "Conservative and Liberal Unionist" ones before that. The favour could cheerfully be returned.

And even after electoral reform, would there be anyone in a Tory party? The ideological takeover of the Tory machine by successive waves of Liberals has been so successful, in its own terms, that most of the dutiful, deferential, donkey-like voters whom that machine delivers honestly have no idea that it is a Liberal, rather than a Tory, idea to oppose the protection of British agriculture and industry from foreign competition, or to subscribe to the sorts of arguments advanced in support of changes such as the legalisation of drugs, or to value "personal liberty" over the definition of marriage as only ever the union of one man and one woman, or to scorn the Catholic and classically Protestant (frequently Tory) critiques of capitalism, or therefore to resist substantial State action against social evils, or to view with anything other than the most profound scepticism the founding mythoi and numerous of the subsequent policies of the United States, or to advocate the use of armed force in order to spread "freedom and democracy".

Are there really any Tories left for David Cameron to purge?

14 November 2011 at 18:35  
Blogger bluedog said...

Is there a whiff of total panic in Smith Square?

You betchya.

14 November 2011 at 18:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

bwims. No time to invent a new party – a Conservative-UKIP ‘agreement at elections’ could be in place next month...

14 November 2011 at 18:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David Lindsay. Good assessment, but what to do ? – Now see the Inspector’s post.

14 November 2011 at 18:53  
Blogger DAN GANN said...

What utter nonsense. I support UKIP but i'm not tribalist - i'm a libertarian conservative and UKIP is the best option for me as it represents a majority of my views. The Conservative and Unionist Party on the other hand has only ever had one leader who even slightly represented me (Thatcher) and the rest have been dripping wet liberals.

I want to destroy the Conservative and Unionist Party not just because it has sold away our independence, but because its politically bankrupt and is in its deaththroes (unlikely to win the next election, failed to win the last against a three-term government).

And no amouunt of 'but you will let [the identical] Labour in' threats will change my mind.

You Conservative Party supporters can either join us or YOU will let Labour back in. Take your pick.

14 November 2011 at 20:00  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Your Grace,

Two pennies from across the ocean: Methinks that while loyalty to one's country, religion or family is one thing, loyalty to a party must be, for the system to work well, conditional on good performance and decent behaviour. As it appears to me, your Conservatives' confidence in the voters' loyalty, and the assumption that they have nowhere else turn to, has led to the current situation with which so many Conservative voters and MPs are so dissatisfied. Of course, "killing" an established party for a single issue upstart is not advisable, but usually that rarely occurs. "Strategic voting," on the other hand, is the citizen's only meaningful means of communicating with his party and his only hope to improve it. This Pavlovian play may inadvertantly backfire, but guaranteed support causes even more damage, for it turns the complacent political party into a stagnant, guild-like Order. It's tough to be a politician, but it can be tough to be a voter too, it seems.

14 November 2011 at 20:00  
Blogger DAN GANN said...

Besides, who said UKIP or a movement that arises from this recent change in the political landscape can't defeat and replace the Conservative and Unionist Party?

It was only in the 1920s that the Labour Party destroyed and replaced the Liberal Party.

Even if it cannot be done (which it can), at least I will be clear in my mind that I put my principles and country first before a blue rosette which belongs to a party which despises my views.

14 November 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DANN GUNN. Courage and cunning needed man. Forget UKIP on it’s own; It took the liberals 90 years before they were part of Government again. We’ll all be speaking German by then. You too see the Inspector’s post for a pragmatic solution....

14 November 2011 at 20:19  
Blogger DAN GANN said...

@Office of Inspector General

No thanks, i'd much rather the entire thing be consigned to history because until the Conservative Party collapses nothing will replace it as there is no vacancy (see Peter Hitchens' Mail Online blog for an explanation on this theory). The ditching of the Conservative brand, which is toxic in many parts of this country even to conservative-minded people, would only serve to help create a new genuinely conservative movement.

As for the Liberal Democrats, i'm not talking about them - i'm referring to how the Labour Party utterly destroyed the Liberal Party which was, until the 1920s, seemingly permanent.

14 November 2011 at 20:25  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Post Script,

As Mr Gann shows us, us Your Grace, when a party abandons core principles, it damages any contract there might be imagined between it and the voter. A similar situation occured in Canada when our Conservatives, formerly going by the oxymoronic term, "Progressive Conservatives," veered too far to the left. The reaction appeared in the form of the Reform Party, a right-of-centre, ideologically more defined, but limited in scope and geography entity. Eventually, when it saw that due to its "puritanism" it could not represent the majority, it wisely merged with the Conservatives and improved them vastly, leading to us enjoying now what is probably best government in Canada's history.

14 November 2011 at 20:28  
Blogger Nick Lockwood said...

The UK Conservative Party sounds good to me!

14 November 2011 at 20:31  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

It took the liberals 90 years before they were part of Government again. We’ll all be speaking German by then. Inspector

Or worse: French. Better than Spanish, perhaps, but not by much.

14 November 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 20.19, for it is written, No man can serve two masters. So it would be with Members of Parliament. How can a member follow two whips at the division bell without a formal coalition agreement so that there is only one joint whip? Parliament isn't touchy-feely, it's a substitute for civil war where the competition of ideas is only resolved by majority vote.

His Grace's post is a sign of weakness at Conservative Head Office, no longer at Smith Square of course, old habits die hard, but now at the Millbank Lubyanka.

In terms of political philosophy, Dave is joined at the hip with the Traitor Clegg. The Conservative lurch to the Left has opened up clear water on the Right, where UKIP now dominates the political agenda. Dave's dilemma, or should that read Mission Impossible, is to recapture the Right without losing the Left.

Hence this post.

14 November 2011 at 20:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DAN GANN It’s understood that the Conservative brand is noxious in parts of the country. It’s why this Inspector refused to join with them after the 1984 miners strike. But time is short – the EU ‘dream’ isn’t going to tolerate separatist political parties forever...

14 November 2011 at 20:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog. With the Inspector's plan, there will be two types of conservative MPs; Conservative and Conservative-UKIP, both following one division bell. If you don’t think the MPs have the imagination to handle that, just read again their ‘expenses’ claims !

14 November 2011 at 20:51  
Blogger IanCad said...

Change can and must come from within the Conservative Party itself. I do not see UKIP as being able to garner but the most disaffected members into its ranks. Enough, hopefully, to scare the CP into getting rid of Cameron and selecting a manly, principled leader. I believe that will be all it will take to gather the lost sheep back into the fold.

14 November 2011 at 21:48  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

What about us 'up north'? Our new conservative and unionist leader is a lesbian proclaiming the virtues of homosexual marriage. For me the major issue deciding my next vote will be the moral issues of marriage and abortion.

Look whats going down in Poland - a Catholic country. They've just returned a male transexual who, on becoming a 'woman', choose to have a relationship with another woman. S/he is campaigning for homosexual marriage (would their's be one?) abortion and the legalisation of cannabis. You couldn't make it up!

14 November 2011 at 21:54  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector, your plan sounds very Anglican to me.

14 November 2011 at 21:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Hardly old chap, just logic. Rough news about these queer politicians WHAT !

14 November 2011 at 22:27  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Iancad @ 21.48, Philip Hammond?

14 November 2011 at 22:39  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

We live in strange and queer times, mate.

I'm actually beginning to wonder if the traditional Catholic position of States not permitting religious freedom wasn't sound after all. All this human rights, liberty and freedom of religion and conscience does corrupt a society. Still, free will and all that, I suppose. That's the way God planned it ...

14 November 2011 at 22:41  
Blogger bluedog said...

Agreed Mr Dodo @ 21.54, the Conservatives in Scotland are seized of a death wish. There's no way the majority of the Scottish electorate will vote for that lassie. My old grandma in Scotland, God bless her soul, was a tireless worker for the former Unionist Party. Better not tell her what's going on, 'Oh for goodness sake!' I can hear her say.

14 November 2011 at 22:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Lads, they’re all queer folk except for me and thee

14 November 2011 at 22:54  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

bluedog, what intregues me is this selection in a country, lets say, not so far down the 'diversity' path as the south. The spirit of John Knox is alive and well up here as is traditional Catholicism.

Labour and SNP will be giggling all the way to the ballot boxes!

14 November 2011 at 23:56  
Blogger IanCad said...

Mr. Bluedog.
Oh, Dear Lord!!
Bombs Away!!
I can hardly believe it.

15 November 2011 at 01:05  
Blogger Manfarang said...

"don’t waste time trying to kill the Conservative Party: it is immortal"
And who would have thought there would come a time when UUP would have no seats at Westminster.It was once as rock solid as the Mountains of Mourne.

15 November 2011 at 03:29  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr IanCad @ 01.05 breathily observed, 'Bombs Away!!
I can hardly believe it.'

So who is your own choice in 'selecting a manly, principled leader.' to replace Dave?

In the strictest confidence, give the name and I'll see if I can believe it.

15 November 2011 at 10:03  
Blogger Nibor said...

Your Grace,

If there wasn`t and never had been a (C)consevative party here in the UK , would you set one up now run along the lines as the present party puporting to be Tories , pursuing the policies they have now , led by a type of leader they have now ?

15 November 2011 at 10:27  
Blogger IanCad said...

Mr. Bluedog,
I live in the hope that one may emerge.

15 November 2011 at 12:15  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Your Grace has mentioned the “sneering contempt and scarcely-concealed loathing” of UKIP members when they refer to the Tories. You mentions that the respect which Tories give to some UKIP policies is “never reciprocated”. .and that UKIP members “refer to the Conservatives as traitors … who ‘betrayed’ the country and ‘deceive’ the electorate. It is understandable that Your Grace feels slighted by UKIP. He will understand my feelings when told a few years ago by an Anglican friend that he had been brought up to believe that Catholics were by definition traitors. Your Grace states that “it is an irrational prejudice to tarnish an entire movement because of the actions of a few” but that is precisely what happened in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot and was milked for all it was worth in the coming centuries. Regardless of the fact that it was the Puritans who were anti-royalist it was always the Catholic who were portrayed as the traitors even when they fought on the Royalist side. The reason of course was that there was a lot of money to be gained by taxing the Catholic aristocracy and the Puritans were very useful tools as they were very keen to persecute as they subsequently showed when they moved to America. It is perhaps not unusual that political parties reduce the level of debate to mud slinging but it is unfortunate that the electorate seems to be very easy to manipulate. Your plea is for unity, the need for which has never been more clearly demonstrated when we look at the world around us. However, I fear that until we achieve Christian unity your cry will fall on deaf ears and we will continue to fragment as a nation especially with the threat of Islamic subversives in our midst. You mention Tories policies such as small government, low taxes etc. but policies emanate from philosophies and current policies derive from the modernist/materialist agenda which states that morality is subjective and the British have, it would seem, bought in to this idea. Trying to change policies when the philosophy is so disjointed does not promise for a happy and stable society.

15 November 2011 at 19:43  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr IanCad @ 12.15, the alternative is to start naming names here and there, which is what I do. You seem to have some inhibition about Hammond based on his current position as Minister of Defence, if so, that is scarcely a reasonable basis for objection. Check out his CV, Hammond is a quiet achiever with the ability to think for himself. Dave is just a salesman for ideas generated by his handlers.

If you put Hammond in front of Merkel and Sarkozy without advisers he would be able to extemporise and prevail. Not so with Cameron, he would succumb to flattery.

15 November 2011 at 19:46  
Blogger IanCad said...

Mr. Bluedog

Re. Hammond:
His absurd overreaction bordering on paranoia IMO disqualifies him from any leadership role.
Now, if he had stated that the government should have absolutely no role whatsoever in the administration of so called sport, then I would applaud.
I think you are entirely too generous in your assessment of Cameron.

16 November 2011 at 13:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older