Is this man Labour’s secret Tory mole?
June 30th, 2007
Can Leigh force his party off the middle-ground?
This is Edward Leigh - the anti-abortion, anti contraception, anti-genetic research and anti-gay rights campaigner who is calling for his party to shift the policy focus away from the centre ground back to traditional “Tory values”.
Perhaps he ought to read this piece by the usually well-informed writer, who also uses the term “Mole” in the First Post. Earlier in the week he wrote on the Davies defection: “..What is becoming increasingly clear is that the defection of Quentin Davies and the appointment of non Labour ministers is part of a much wider and more sophisticated strategy by Gordon Brown to pull the rug from under David Cameron…Brown aims to relentlessly undermine Cameron’s leadership of his party to encourage a rebellion by the Tory right against the Leader of the Opposition…Brown wants the Tory right to flex its muscles to force Cameron back from the centre ground. Davies’ defection will fuel the pressure on the leadership to return to traditional Conservative values.“
Clearly that makes absolute sense for Brown knows more than anybody that the heart of New Labour’s appeal in the past three elections was that it had abandoned much of the policy platform that had made it unelectable. Cameron knows that too and the support the Tories have picked picked up since he became leader has been mostly from the centre.
Quite simply traditional Tories don’t matter any more. Their views are as irrelevant as they are quaint. The only small hope they have got is to force the party leadership to abandon its appeal the centre voters thus continuing the party’s long-drawn out suicide.
What Gordon can do to cause this dissent will be the battleground for the next election. He’s a great strategist but will he succeed?
I don’t know and cannot call the next election.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Surely a Tory party that is honest about its right wing ideology would be a good thing.
The Conservatives ceased to be an old centrist Tory party in the mid eighties.
The basic problem is that the vast majority of people who would consider themselves ‘Conservative’ do not support the middle ground policies of DC. I for one detest this Labour governments policies on virtually every issue and see no value whatsoever in trying to copy them. NuLab economic and social policies are utterly moronic and destined to end in abject failure and I want an alternative. The real point is that I would rather remain in opposition and be true to my own values and ideals than ‘change’ in order to simply win power. That is the basic problem with politics today, no party has any real values, they simply exist to wield power.
I think that it would be equally foolish for the Conservative Party leadership to adopt the line advocated by Edward Leigh, or for them to conclude that “Quite simply traditional Tories don’t matter any more. Their views are as irrelevant as they are quaint.”
To do the former would be to limit one’s appeal to about 30% of the population. To do the latter would be to alienate the same 30% of the population. Victory would be unlikely in either case.
The sad thing is that the quaint old notion of politicians setting out their stall on (a) what their principles and strategic aims are and (b) what poliies they propose to adopt to achieve them - followed by election campaigns in which they try to appeal to voters to support their approach - have pretty well gone out the window. The whole ‘game’ as perceived by ordinary people as well as media commentators involves a competition for ‘conman of the year’ (on the basis of which coalition of interests do we pander to this week in order to secure power, after which we will try to do what we want despite what we were elected on) fueled by focus groups, private polls and Daily Mail editorials.
When you had Tony Benn, Enoch Powell, Jo Grimond, at least you knew that you would get what it said on the tin!
4 - zebidee - for once I agree with you!
3 Sean - Quite right. The only electorally successful strategy is to build a broad centre-right coalition.
To focus on either exclusively, is suicidal. We tried three elections in a row where we adopted ideologically pure, core-vote strategies. The majority of the electorate don’t hold similar views. We failed and lost. Dismally. Three times in a row.
Steve @ 2. You may well prefer the ideological purity of opposition. If that is the case, then I suggest you join a think-tank instead. Political parties exist to campaign for and secure power. I am a Conservative party member and activist because I want a Conservative government. I don’t want to shout yah-boo from the sidelines, happy that my narrow policy set has no dissent amongst the uber-loyal few I travel with.
The business of government is not ideologically pure. It is where political principle is fused with gritty reality. I am quite happy that in opposition we develop as broad an electoral appeal as possible, whilst remaining true to broad Conservative principles - market based economics coupled with personal and institution responsibility that delivers social mobility.
We should be building that broad centre-right consensus that will carry us back into government; instead some seem to prefer the insanity of squabbling over how pure our view is of grammar schools or arcane EU provisions.
I despair if we choose that route. I despair of the idiocy of Edward Leigh’s position (in the face of 3 successive election defeats using his approach). Quite soon the electorate will permanently despair of us.
4. Yep it’s all about positioning these days. This is probably why Cruddas did so well in the Labour Deputy contest - he had some clear conviction. The public like it when politicians give straight answers and have some fire in their bellies, yet the parties continue to cross dress - Conservatives praising Polly Toynbee, Labour appointing Digby Jones etc. This must partly explain a decline in turnout and political activism - but that isn’t incentivised in our winner-takes-all politics at the moment.
Zebidee - the problems the country faces today do not require the ideological differences that existed between Benn or Powell.
The legacy of Thatcher is that top-down controlled-economy socialism died. A broad market-based, choice/consumer led, capitalist settlement backed up by strong public services has prevailed.
In that sense then, we will not see a return of left/right battles of yesteryear. Elections today are not about distinctly left or rightist solutions, but about broadly centrist policies, which is where most people converge in the early 21st century.
Anyone know anything about this….
A third poll — for the BBC — found that 48 per cent of people reckon the Tory leader is “superficial” and has “no clear convcitions”.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007300175,00.htm
everyone attacked the cameron cameleon ad but look like the attack has stuck.
The problem with Cameron’s so-called centrism (which is more an absence of any policies at all) is that when voters desert Labour, there is no reason for them to vote Conservative.
6 - Robin with respect that is to completely misread the past.
1997 - we lost because we had a “centrist” wishy washy PM who lost control of his party, after 11 successful years of a radical Thatcherite Conservative party. There is no way you can characterise John Major as “right wing”!
2001 - whoever was leading the Conservative Party would have led us to defeat. Labour was in with a massive majority and people thought Blair was not doing a bad job. Under Hague the mistake was not to make a stand on firm principles. Instead we had a series of different (and sometimes contradictory) stances and it seemed that the party was only jumping on bandwagons. Hague is a good guy but the party was still stunned after 1997 and had almost no local govt base either.
2005 - Michael Howard had about 12 months to make an impact. He succeeded in arresting the decline that IDS would have precipitated with his “social justice” agenda and his lack of charisma. Yes Howard tried a core vote election campaign and it is arguable that this led to the gains that we made in the right areas for us.
So I dont buy this argument that we have lost “because we have been too right wing”. It doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
The danger that Cameron faces is that people who were motivated by Howard and to a lesser extend Hague are being to fray off from the party. There is much that Cameron is doing that is good and I support but he needs to demonstrate that behind the fluff lies deep principles and beliefs, both of his own and of the party. At present he is not doing that. I fear that for as long as people like George Bridges and Steve Hilton have his ear he will not do so.
I dont agree with a lot of what Edward Leigh says but on this he is right. The Conservative party is the party of the right (centre-right if you must) or it is nothing!
11 - I do wonder how the Tories would have fared under IDS in a GE.
The trouble with IDS and Hague was that they did not reach out. My aunt, in her 80s, is a lifelong Conservative, always a member, never an activist.
She thought that Hague and IDS were great as she agreed with every single word they said. Therein lies the problem I feel. Hague and IDS appealed to the hardcore only.
You could say the same of Michael Foot in 1983.
12 - SBS - yes that I do agree with. Cameron has successfully reached out and broken out of the core 30% support base. However, he need to make some firm stands on principle now and most of those would probably be characterised as “right-wing” - ie strong defence (internal and external), tough on law and order, low tax and free market vs high tax and EU constrictions.
It will be interesting to see how he squares the circle!
Cameron will not give in to Cornerstone. No way, no how.
He’s always been Eurosceptic - but so are 80% plus of Britons.
And most accept the need to build up marriage and strengthen crime provisions and tackle uncontrolled immigration.
However, our emphasis will be on social justice, the environment, education and the NHS. If Leigh thinks he will get rid of DC’s green and inclusive politics, he is dreaming.
Opposition only until the failure of the current government becomes apparent to all, which hopefully is not that far away.
13 - basically, it is more electorally expedient to have 40% of the voting public agree with you enough to vote for you, than to have 30% agreeing with every last detail.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out without Blair. Will Cameron remind people of Blair, now the dour Scot is PM? And if Cameron does remind people of Blair, will that be a good thing?
Rik - a Tory party conference in Reading would be entertaining. Can you think of a venue? I can’t really see the Town Hall, Rivermead or the Hexagon working.
13,14 — NHS, education, environment might be fruitful ground for Cameron, perhaps with right-wing policies but merely hinting that he is broadly in favour of schools and hospitals gets him nowhere.
9.
The last YouGov has Labour on 38% and the Lib Dims on 15%, a total of 53%.
Yet only according to the BBC poll only ‘48 per cent of people reckon the Tory leader is “superficial” and has “no clear convcitions”’.
So Labour and the Lib Dims can’t even persuade all their supporters with their anti-Cameron spin.
18 - can’t agree. The voting intention is probably weighted for likeliness to vote. Among the general public, there are still a large number of people - especially in the 18-24 age group who won’t know of Cameron (and possibly not of Brown either).
And “superficial” and “no clear convictions”. What about the figures for “quite superficial” and “few clear convictions”? We don’t know them.
11 Rik, Yes I agree it’s not quite as simple as “core vote” for the last three elections. But you could characterise our basic position each time as:
1997 - Save the Union;
2001 - Save the Pound/anti EU
2005 - Immigration dog-whistle & other right-wing rhetoric.
None of these strategies worked against a centrist Labour party with an emphasis on public services.
Until and unless we can develop a broadly centre-right consensus that chimes with the majority of ordinary people, we will continue with Steve’s glorious principled opposition.
The danger with his position, as with Michael Foot’s, is that even if the government loses popularity, the core vote/ideologically pure approach does not entice voters to support the party.
The maths is straightforward - there simply aren’t enough votes on the right (or left) alone. Id *has* to be a centre-led strategy.
Now, that’s not to say that we don’t need more detail and bite on our policies. But that is a different thing to syaing we need to move rightwards as Leigh seems to be saying.
Could we be looking at the next Conservative defector I say? If so, he’d be the second Lincolnshire MP (Gainsborough). Could this be an effect of UKIP’s very high polling in Boston and Skegness at the last election?
Reading the posts of the Cameroons brings back memories of the Labour party prior to the split. People on the right and the centre of the Labour Party, desperate for power being drowned out by the howls of militant and their Bennite allies. Always remember this Labour has not won three GE’s in a row because it didn’t split, it has won three GE’s in a row, because it did. The left of the Labour party went into decline and has all but dissapeared, because it had no friends or supporters. The right of the Tory party is not friendless, it has support in the press, right wing populist columnists like Hitchens/Heffer and others, its strength amongst Tory activists is certainly there, many will be supporting what Edward Leigh has to say. The Cameroons and those who wish to turn the Tory Party into a centre right, Liberal Conservative party, will not co-exist with the right for ever. If there is to be a split best to get it over with, and start to build the party that you feel represents your views, sooner rather than later.
OT As regards the incident at Glasgow airport, I’ve got a trext messgae from a former colleague who works in security there. He wasn’t on shift but says others working there today say it looked very deliberate.
“It gets better by the day,for Brown, Dave needs to come up with something really substantial before the recess.
I know a few who will be calling for DC to go by the end of September if we dont get back in front by then,many of them post on here regularly too.
Posted by: R.Baker.”
Just a taste of the comments on ConHome.
What will they do when their non-Tory candidate at Southall lets them down?
betfair market on most seats - someone has plonked 2k on Lab at 2s - prob to stop the price rising - and is filling up Cons at 2.02s but wont take any of the lays on offer - market manipulation ? “Labour faves for next GE” - cheap spin ?
Looks like a suicide bomber has just driven a jeep into the entrance of Glasgow airport
25. Bit conspirational Jamie.
26. It does look like it according to my old mate if his info is spot on, but again a failed attack. Thats 3 if so. Someone hasn’t read their explosive detonation manual fortunately.
The cops have a very good CCTV of the one running from Haymarket.
Zebedee and Rick W up thread. I am rather shocked that active political participants like you can think that politics can be conducted in some perfect ideological goldfishbowl, excluded from all the pressures that affect our working lives. Work, life,is an eternal compromise - an attempt to get the best result, no matter how. Honourable objectives are pursued but with not a little cynicism. Why should politics be exempt from this rule? Have you not read any history books?
Politics is rough, cruel, chronically unfair, only one-step up from Tammany Hall, and always has been. It can only be conducted in the “gentlemanly fashion” you seem to want when the gentlemen have rigged it to rule permanently - which is sort of what the Tories did until New Labour came along
What you are really pineing for is the old world where labour always made itself unelectable. That will not happen until Brown goes.
Would you want to be governed by mouthy wafflers like Powell, Leigh, Benn . No thank you. I want people that can do the tough stuff - and Gordy’s had 10 years of successfully doing the tough stuff.
Sadly PtP’s bets in the big one at Newcastle didnt come in….I believe he’s up before the committee on the same days as me….
Umm apparently some of the eyewitnesses were encouraging one of the guys to be allowed to burn. Tough boys in Glasgow.
30 Monolith nowhere…but I’ll be pleading a worthy fifth for River Altaath in mitigation.
32. Also tipped by none other than Steve Harley on the wireless this morning.
Monolith didnt turn up by the looks of it Peter. Happens, they can be moody old sods.
Now more on topic.
The figure that caught my eye the other week was the one showing that there was a distinct ideological rift in the beliefs of the members of the Conservative Party, that did not exist in Labour.
The debate in in the Consevative party is between the 50% who think the country has gone to the dogs and those that recognise the world has moved on, and you cannot be Canute like. There is no equivalent debate in the other two parties. In particular, the hard left have lost much of their constituency in Labour - they could not even muster a candidate for the leadership election.
So the tension facing DC is not ephemeral, but quite genuinely deep, will keep popping up and can’t be media managed. If it is any consolation (or maybe it is not) I don’t think Labour came to terms with the modern world until after the second election win. It was the combination of building a winning election formula and then having a concerted period in office trying to put policy into ptractice which taught them how the modern world works.They owe a debt to Conservatives like Edward Leigh that made the task simpler by neutering the Opposition while they learned.
33 I saw the race, Yokel. Monolith was never travelling.
River A. was always in the first six but just lacked that bit extra at the business end.
No complaints. They were both double digit odds.
No news of Sven yet. I was hoping he would sign today. If he does so before Tuesday, might get me a bit off the sentence.
35 “….might get me a bit off the sentence.”
No chance Peter. The judge is dusting off his black cap as we speak.
35. I assume they have to wait until this Thai bloke gets his 75% and thus has pretty much full ownership and that process runs its course..
Here’s another thought
Ian Dale constructed a cabinet with the best of all parties in each position. So he had David Davis at Home office but conceded Education to Johnson. Cable was Chief Sec to the Treasury. Ming was at the FO and so on.
Do you know it actually looked quite good, and I also suspected they would get on quite well together, more so than they did with the likes of Leigh on one side and Benn or whoever on the other. Attlee and Churchill worked rather well together during the war. Dales list was one of practical men and women of power who wanted to do stuff, rather than just talk about it.
37 My Bangkok spies tell me that if ‘this Thai bloke’ ever returns to his native country, he’ll be brown bread before he even gets through immigration.
You can see why he thinks even Manchester is preferable.
19.
The ‘poll’ is from the Daily Politics where they ask loaded questions like ‘Do you think Cameron is…’ or ‘Is Brown…’ which imho tell us very little and just give them a chance to have a go at a politican. The ‘poll’ also, if memory serves, said that Cameron was likely to win the next election.
11 John Major may have been centrist but the loonies around Gorman and yes at IDS at the time were not! Put simply the Tory Party collectively went mad at the time. JM was not seen as hard right wing but his Party certainly was, which may explain why JM remained with good personal ratings up to the end, unlike his Party.
2001 - Yup Blair would have win anyway. Even so a net gain of one seat was pathetic. So a few more Tory voters came out in core seats. Big deal, because Hague had not detoxified the Party the opposition came out en masse incl large scale tactucal voting in marginals to thwart you. Not sure how that vindicates Hague. I don’t think even Hague stands by that now, hence his Cameron support.
2005- Howard you are correct did this but only because he had 18 months to try and turn a disorganised rabble into something like an electoral fighting force. He did try to change the image but quickly concluded there was too little time. But he saw the long term necessity for it, hence his vigorous patronage of Cameron. Leigh is a certified loon, your Tony Benn if you like. Don’t you listen to GO, “No such thing as a tax cutting Shadow Chancellor, only a tax cutting Chancellor.” Nuff said I think
The best thing the Tories can do is play the English card and highlight the fact that Gordon Brown signed ‘The Scottish Claim of Right’ back in 1988. This compounded with immigration, the WLQ, failing NHS, EU referendum should be the focal points of the Tories whethere it be David Cameron or whoever else. Left/Right politics is not the problem anymore because the social engineers have permanently changed this country for good.
41. Agree laregely with what you say.
Peter don’t you start being rude about northern cities - that is Rik’s job.
I heard a good expression once - ’sometimes things have to change to stay the same’. The Heffers and Leighs of this world seem incredibly blinkered, thinking the world of the 1980s is still here. The policies of Eden were not right for Thatcher, the policies of Thatcher are not right for Cameron. I don’t get this ‘traditional conservatism’. It is a highjack by one particularly vocal small section of the party and Cameron will gain more by standing up to it.
39. That has to be the most ironic of all rhyming slang..given the healthier qualities of brown beard…
Punter, I’ve answered you on the English Civil War at the bottom of threthread with Jack Straw at the top
Re: Glasgow, the pics look like it could have been a daramtic accident but thats some accident.
Just catching up on the Glasgow thing. Sounds very dramatic.
Are we sure they weren’t just late for their plane?
History is littered with Edward Leigh’s. In the 1832 it was the die hards around the Duke of Wellington, in 1910 it was those that wanted to die “in the ditch” fighting Lloyd George. In every case history shows their views to be laughable
41. IDS started the social justice agenda, and the localist movement. The media had to make sure he was not heard as it did not fit in with their prejudices about left and right wing politicians. They try to maintain their left/rigth wing narrative as that is what they learned in school. Without it they are rudderless. When supposed right wing policies address social problems more effectively than supposedly left wing policies, they have to be rubbed out immediately, their initiaters assassinated and besmirched as nazis forever more. Heil The Media.
49. If so they were also carrying some extra fuel for the aircraft. I assume they thought it would help them beat the surcharges.
What beats me is why they couldnt break into the building if thats what they were doing. Maybe they just didnt/couldnt get enough speed or hit something on the way in, or that caused them to go in.
My old colleague that works there says his colleagues at GLA are convinced it was deliberate but he hasnt texted me since. He’s probably out shopping…
One thing that is needed is for the main parties to stop trying to deny their roots, labour is now an empty shell with no ideology, for example, and they also take the brunt of the blame because in the 1980’s they started it. Cameron has it more difficult because . even though he is closer to historical toryism than Thatcherism, people have short memories. Ming has to decide whether he is a subgroup of labour or something which is more akin to a traditional vigorous liberalism (I know which one I would choose).
‘They’re all the same you know….’
New labour are the ultimate villains in this as they vacated a whole area of political belief and plonked tjhemsleves in the middld of two other existing parties. Blair may have been good for some things but this legacy is causing the rise of fringe parties, some like the BNP, odious and potentially dangerous.
53. interesting, ukpaul that you see that labour have abandoned the left leaning area of social justice. IDS seized this policy area and made it his own.
The middle ground is really a marketing term, a label - nothing that requires the application of human intelligence to the solving of social or other problems. It’s only about positioning yourself relative to others. It is amoral, and literally valueless.
“History is littered with Edward Leigh’s. In the 1832 it was the die hards around the Duke of Wellington, in 1910 it was those that wanted to die “in the ditch” fighting Lloyd George. In every case history shows their views to be laughable”
By definition, the views of anyone who loses a political battle can be written off as “laughable”. But in reality, there’s nothing laughable about the viewpoints expressed by the Edward Leighs of this World. Were they to prevail, then history would hail them as great statesmen, and their opponents’ views as “laughable.”
I really don’t think that analogies between the Conservatives and Labour in opposition are good ones, because (a) in general, the views held by Conservative members tend to be more mainstream than those that were held by Labour members in the eighties (b) there’s no equivalent of Militant Tendency in the Conservative Party, and (c) the crazies aside, Blair and Prescott took good care to be polite to core Labour voters, and to keep them onside.
26. Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno.
The convergence in the centre of politics is heavily driven by the electoral system. Both Lab and Con (and increasingly, Lib) have done their psephology much more rigorously in recent years and worked out that the only voters that matter are swing voters in marginals.
For as long as people who arent swing voters in a marginal have nowhere to go that will make any difference, they will remain irrelevant electorally, and therefore will not be appealed to electorally.
If the Leighs of this world had any sense, they would be calling for PR, so that they could pick up their 20% support directly, and then wait for the coalition negotiations to get their policies implemented. Of course, they would have to hope that the moderate centre-right got 30%, or they would be beaten by the centre-left and left…
“However, he need to make some firm stands on principle now…” Rik W @ 12.
That’s not really you is it Rik? I’m impressed that the cheerleading has gone - I remember you having a real go at me when Cammy was elected, and I said that I thought it was a strategic mistake to put off having firm policies for such a long period, and that people would start to see him as superficial. At that point it was ’stage 1′ I seem to remember. Has ’stage 2′ been forgotten about, or are you personally becoming more cynical about ‘Project Cameron’ ? Enquiring minds would like to know.
57 It’s certainly my view that PR would increase the overall vote share won by the parties of the Right (loosely defined) and reduce the vote share won by the parties of the Left (equally loosely defined). It could just lead to more or less permanent centrist coalitions though, which may not be very healthy.
57 - One of the reasons I support PR is that it would enable parties to split into groups that didn’t have to all chase that centre vote.
57. how do you explain the growth in inorm parties from 8% to around 15% in the last 5 years? centre ground? I don’t think so.
Where’s Jack W, werent those rumoured defections he was told about mean’t to happen by now. Or maybe, saensibly such things should be put on hold..or they aren’t happening at all.
61 Actually, that proves his point. The fact that anything up to 15% are now prepared to vote for minor parties (in 1983 it was 3%) is very largely down to the big three chasing a rather narrow section of the electorate. Even if minor parties do win 15%, they won’t pick up many seats, but they might start to affect constituency results in unpredictable ways.
What sort of ‘traditional Tory’ values are “anti-abortion, anti contraception, anti-genetic research and anti-gay rights”? This sounds more ike al-Quaeda and will appeal to no-one. It’s arguable that there might be a case for the Tories making the low tax, small state argument a bit more confidently, but there are no votes in anything Edward Leigh’s proposing.
11 onwards.
What i don’t get is why the tories are not allowed to have rightwingers who are a vocal minority where as Labour have a similar if not greater proportion of their MP’s as unreconstructed Socialists?
Even in the Labour DL elections candidates were far to the left for my cup of tea. Talking about city bonuses etc and saying some pretty silly things on Iraq and terrorism which they supported in government!
No equivalent of Militant Tendency in the Conservative Party…mmm.
Actually Leigh is a very effective chairman of the Select Committee he chairs but it seems impossible for him to use his energies to support his leadership. There are some senior Tories with safe seats who enjoy the prestige of chairing commitees etc and might not, whisper it, be actually too bothered about winning an election. So they can keep their ideological purity which actually has no historical place in the Party. They were the more successful party in the twentieth century because of their ability to adapt to changes in society.
62 Maybe Sven’s appointment is being held back for the same reason, Yokel?
64 Those tend to be free vote issues, but there is a substantial minority of the population who would agree with Leigh on such issues. I doubt if he is proposing that his views on these become party policy though.
66 My view is that while the Conservatives enjoyed more electoral success in the twentieth century, Labour were by far the more successful party in moving society in a leftward direction. The Conservatives’ electoral success was a very hollow victory indeed.
In someways it is good that Edward Leigh can speak about the troubles of his voters in his seat. It amases me why people take such notice of these people as the tories are no where near Govt until an election is called and they could still not form a govt even if they win 70-80 additional seats. To get a Maj. they need well over 100 seats.
I think what the tories should be stressing is something Richard Balfe (former MEP) said on TV recently about what seperates Tory and Labour. That is Labour uses the state to support individuals and control them where as the tories encourage people to support themselves and be master of their destiny, where this fails let the state help.
It is a succint difference but from my period of unemployment the state has done very little for me and i am the master of my own destiny - I will not get anywhere unless i take the risk and make the decisions (Borrowing more money to re-skill).
67. Dunno, but I still dont think Thaksin has completed his takeover. He’s at 60 pdd percent I think or was a day or two ago with some shares to buy up.
Edinburgh airport closed to new vehicles.
68 A thoughtful and thought-provoking post that, SeanF. Interesting, but I’m not sure which is cause and which consequence.
The silly season has obviously started early this year, Mike…
The Tories problem is that no one knows what they stand for, thus the public has nothing to draw on other than their past experience…starting with Black Wednesday….
Cameron at this stage has no vision and it really is that simple.
RikW I think your analysis of the last three elections might be as misleading as the idea that the Tories lost because they were too right wing.
The majority of the electorate saw the Tories as selfish men with a monomania about Europe that had no understanding or relationship to their day to day concerns. Men who did not understand why they lost in 1997 ( a fissiparous, disorganised, egocentric conceited rabble who lectured and hectored) and who seemed unwilling to learn from experience and clearly had forgotten that the electorate is the boss, not the MPs and party hacks.
The Edward Leighs of the world and the muppets in Cornerstone helped this misconception along nicely. One more heave on the right wing oar and we shall win! Piffle. Disraeli must be spinning in his grave at such silly nonsense.
It seemed at every opportunity the Tory party gave the other parties superb ammunition to keep this caricature alive.
The time has come for thoughtful silence from the usual suspects to prove that the self discipline the Tory party used to be famous for is still possible. That the party can form a government that will not act like out of control toddlers and that such a government will tackle the issues that matter to people: the public services, the environment and quality of life.
Are people safe in their homes, will they be able to buy a house or flat, will their jobs be lost by out sourcing overseas or immigration, will they and thier families be treated properly and promptly when they need medical help, will they have enough money left over after their taxes and mortgages to live reasonably well, will society recognise the importance of their families and provide help and support when it s needed, will their children have the opportunity to grow up and prosper, will they be safe from criminals and criminality?
That is where Cameron’s agenda rests and within it are all those ‘values’ which are truly Tory. My values and my agenda match his.
68 Well it depends what you mean by a more leftward direction. Over the period in which they won four elections in a row the power of trade unions, which used to be a very significant factor in the running of this country, diminished enormously.
29 - John Wheatley - no-one is suggesting total ideological purity (whatever that is). POlitics is about compromise and reality. However, I would prefer it to be based more on belief and principle than on focus group and image. Both have their uses but under Blair they became the over-riding determinant of policy. I dont want my party going the same way!
58 - the day Paul Lloyd has the best interests of the Conservative party at the heart of his comments is the day I run stark naked through Parliament! Of course I criticised fatuous comments demanding instant policies from a known Lib Dem activist but it is now time for some substance to start coming through. And it should be substance based on sound Conservative principles not on what the Guardian wants to hear! I am keen to hear about stage 2 from Cameron now!
62 - I suspect that the stories of further defections were promoted by Labour to cover the lack of talent in the cabinet reshuffle. Westminster was certainly abuzz with rumour last week but I suspect that it was no more than rumour. Time will tell!
Comments above that Cornerstone are like Benn and the militants are not just ill-informed, they are plainly wrong. The instincts of the Conservative party are basically in tune with the British people. We dont need to jettison every thing we ever believed in to become electable (see Labour in the 1980’s). We needed time to lose an image of callousness and a reputation for economic ineptitude earned by the “centrist” John Major in the 1992-97 period.
Interesting thread with lots of thoughtful posts.
We’ve all grappled with these issues if we’re serious about politics. If one moves off the SWP/Cornerstone position that only perfect ideological soundness will do (I remember Michael Foot being attacked from the left as a compromiser), then I think it comes down to deciding what core objectives one has and what one’s willing to jettison if it becomes unpopular. If the electorate will not accept the core objectives, you don’t have a decent alternative to fighting to persuade them. But if they merely insist on something you don’t care much about, there’s no shame in compromising.
It’s a lazy habit that we all have to describe everyone in left/right terms, but there are at least four important strands to the Tories: Euroscepticism, traditional values, low tax, and simply running the country. DC is primarily about number 4 - the belief that Tory government is a good thing in itself and whatever compromises are necessary to achieve it must be made. When Rik writes
>There is much that Cameron is doing that is good and I support but he needs to demonstrate that behind the fluff lies deep principles and beliefs, both of his own and of the party.
47 “Lambert - Best Roundhead general after Cromwell - and that is a high measure, when you consider the talent that rose to the top during the civil war – Harrison, Fairfax, Ireton even Waller. The Scottish campaign was much of his doing, and he was famously good at marshalling cavalry – the key weapon of the war” Err so why again did his army desert when he tried to confront Monck. Good General, but religious fanatic who inspired his men through fear rather than affection then I would guess
68. You may be right uptil 1979 but the tories then when into overdrive!!! Now Labour endourse Neo-classical economics instead of statist socialism!!! Where Labour have not changed is their limitation of an individuals freedom of choice in all areas of economic and social activity in which they choose to regulate.
I can tell you know that unless their is a revival of socialism, the tories will not win elections by pandering to Edward Leigh’s views. It is not that he has not got a point - the fact of the matter is the circumstances in which the types of policies maybe implemented are not here. Stuff like educational vouches will not work nor will thing’s like public service (NHS) vouchers, bound to fail.
Interestingly i find the work of an american bloke (cannot remember his name) very interesting. It is where they scrape the welfare state and give an individual $10,000 a year for health, education etc. Obviously some people will piss it up the wall etc but it would be an interesting development in those areas of society, which are marginal cases of economic inactivity. I see them at the jobcentre when i sign on and heard on a number of occasions there desire not to work. Obviously Labour would do their nut and the tories are unlikely to adopt this sort of economic social policy. But i would say this my age group the under 35’s are being asked to pay a large number of cheques for the baby boomers. At some point in the future their is bound to be a crisis in the system!!! (I sound like a marxist know!!! :lol:).
73. How is Black Wednesday the fault of any (previous government)? I thought the Tories were for the free market, so how was that their fault? Just because they were in power then?
76 see 41. Sorry it is you who are plain wrong. The Polls showed consistently the public didn’t see JM personally as “callous” but his Party. He always had good ratings until the end. Attempting to exculpate Gorman and her crew from the car crash that was the Tory Party in the 90’s takes breathtaking front. As for Leigh why do you presume he’s so popular with Labour, whether not he’s the same as Benn can be put aside he shares one thing with him. Labour see him and his ilk the same as you saw Benn and his cronies as a positive electoral asset to them that is
oops, forgot that right bracks kill the rest of the post! 77 continued:
I think Rik misunderstand DC. If he had deep principles and beliefs, beyond a certain commitment to being pleasant most of the time, he’s have mentioned them by now. He sees the task as a marketing problem, and has no detectable commitment in princpile to traditional values or low taxation. If you’re a Eurosceptic who mainly wants a Tory government, whatever it does, then Cameron should be good enough for you. If you fancy the other two, you’re on a hiding to nothing - either he won’t win, or he won’t do what you want.
Labour went through the same process. We decided (sort of) our core values were improving public services, reducing unemployment, helping the working poor and liberalising socially (gay partnerships and so on). We decided we didn’t care so much about nuclear disarmament, state control, union power or high taxation, and as all four were unpopular we jettisoned them. A lot of members felt one or more of these *were* core values, and left.
Professional politicians make these decisions all the time, and sometimes their parties go too far and they jump ship. But there is nothing intrinsically evil about trying to distinguish between what you really care about and what you’ll go along with.
Sorry for the long post!
53,
The BNP might get a major boost from this terrorism campaign.
On Sky news an eye witness heard an official say let him burn.
It might not be only glaswegians, who start to feel the same way, if sustained continuous attacks on the United Kingdom bring death and destruction.
re 56 And if the press knew as much Latin as Enoch Powell there wouldn’t have been quite so much trouble.
Interesting comments and analysis, as ever.
One of the first points to make is that one problem the Conservatives have as a party is the current failure to define the term ‘Traditional Tory values’ in a positive light. Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tory right all have a vested interest in claiming that the party has abandoned its traditional values. One because it gives greater legitimacy to that line of thinking within the party, the others because it keeps the Conservatives in opposition, both because it undermines David Cameron.
In fact, I’m not sure how far Cameron has moved away from the Howard manifesto at the last election and how much he’s just stopped talking about the issues that formed the core of that campaign (issues that by themselves were popular but taken together seemed unduly harsh). There’s probably been a move to the centre on social issues but not particularly on the economic questions. OK, he’s agreed to stick by Labour spending plans for the first few years but in reality that just about has to happen as most schemes have a lead in time and either can’t be cancelled midstream without significant disruption.
Taxes will fall as the economy grows. He supports the Union. The party will take a sceptical view of the EU (slightly too sceptical in my opinion, but I recognise I’m in a minority on that one). Public services management will not be run so centrally. None of these positions seems to me out of line with Tory thinking in the past 20 years.
In terms of political positioning, his biggest problem is that while quite a bit of Labour’s policies have been relatively left-wing, particularly the way Brown has handled his redistribution agenda, Labour has sounded centre-right. So rather than the parties all being the same, they at least sound much the same.
Still, Cameron’s two main tasks are firstly, to prove to the public that the extra money Labour is spending is making little or no difference and that the government is failing, and secondly, to establish the Conservatives as a viable alternative government. Brown’s main tasks are to maintain the illusion of change and continue to deliver an at least adequate economy.
Appearing to retreat into traditional Tory obsessions does not make the party appear government-like. That’s why Cameron has quite rightly refocussed the issues on which he’s centred. But even if he gets that bit right, he still has to rely on the government messing up for enough people to get his chance.
73. Cameron at this stage has no vision and it really is that simple.
Cameron has a vision - Obviously he has been talking about a greener, more sociably mobile, self relient and socially responsible society.
WHere you maybe right is policies - however no opposition usually puts policies so far away from a GE. Only parties that will lose like Labour in 1983. The negative Economic and defence policies were well known in advance. Really all an opposition can have is an aspiration unless it votes with the government as Cameron has on Defence, education and health. An opposition does not have a Maj. in parlaiment and so cannot implement their policies as a government would do.
The same was said of Tony Blair, when he was leader of the opposition. What a lot of people do not relise is that 80% plus of modern governments continue the same policies as previous administrations (Perhaps people do relise as they say there is no difference) enacted. There is no point all of this being trotted out all the time, it is only when a government advocates a truely radical manefesto with changes to economic, social and strategic alliances where an opposition party need print all this stuff!!! In general they don’t win either!!!!
1983!!!
Interesting threads today. What I can’t figure out is whether the fragmentation of political opinion today is any greater than in the recent past. I have a feeling it is, despite the electoral system mitigating against multiple political parties. My guess is that some deep-seated and unstoppable economic trends lie behind this: globalization; the impact of technology in removing low skilled jobs (and conversely raising the rewards to education); and – as Martin @69 describes – the privatization of risk (and reward) associated with changing jobs. So, even though the average person in the country is better off, the increased volatility in possible life-outcomes leads to a fragmentation of political views.
80. The public associate it with the Tory government Francis whether you like it or not.
87. Yes i would agree with that - I think another driver as we all become educated to a wider level and more aware of issues through the globalisation of Information (Not just Economics) is the rise of single issues! This of course leads to the splintering of opinion.
What is going on?
Sky says Endinburgh, Newcastle and Blackpool airports being closed off by armed police,
and Paisley Hospital being evacuated….
86. Actually, a party with a country-changing manifesto did win the 1983 election. The 1979 manifesto was relatively centreist itself apart from in the determination to deal with inflation through monetarist measures. It was the 1983 parliament that took a lot of the radical decisions - privatisation of the state industries and so on.
In fact comparing the Tory manifesto of 1979 and the Labour ones of 1997-2005, I’m not sure which would be the more left wing.
First Labour Leaflet in Southall
http://www.laboursouthall.com/images/uploads/166563/59875ad1-6ef3-1b94-9d86-ea7bd588a176.pdf
90. Rod they are stopping new traffic entering Edinburgh airport. I asasume they are going to plan some assembly or get people to park off site and walk.
88. I actually think that Black Wednesday whilst still an emotive issue for some (Particularly Labour politicians) has deminished due to time. It is a bit like the 1976 IMF crisis or winter of discontent - pretty meaningless to subsequent generations. Of course people suffered greatly and it was a silly policy!
I hope when David Cameron keeps bringing Iraq up in the same vein that Labour will remember there policy on the ERM! Gordon Brown Shadow Trade Sec, Shadow Chance. (Stand in for John Smith), then after the 1992 election.
91. You are right, however i was talking about oppositions becoming a government. 1983 was a re-election and a defeat of unpopular left wing policies. It was a good test of democracy - A true choice of Left, Centre and right. Excellent stuff.
Surprised nobody has commented on the change in tone of the government response to the terror (or attempted terror) attacks.
The response seems to be emphasising “need to be vigilant, continue with normal life etc”.
Under the previous regime whilst they would have made the above obvious points we would have heard much more about “these people are trying to change our way of life, they represent a huge threat to our society, we must defeat these people, this battle may go on for a long time etc”.
I much prefer the lower key response. I think the more we talk about terrorism and turn it into a drama / crisis the more we encourage it.
But what does everyone think the public now expects? Will the public think the Brown / Smith response is not up to the Blair / Reid “standard”?
53 – Excellent post. I note that none of the Labour posters on this site have made any effort to rebut your last point. In 1997 Labour came to power and implemented some banal, multi-culti slogans-as-policies, of which the worst were the abolition of the primary purpose rule and the deliberate discouragement of assimilation. At no point did Labour think through the consequences of their policies and as a result we’ve had the huge growth of the far right. Completely counterproductive, with the people NuLab was hoping to help (presumably ethnic minorities) now having to face a more sucpicious, tense and unhappy environment.
As with education and health reform, it has taken NuLab a whole decade to realize that the policies they implemented in 1997/8 have completely failed. The growth of extremism is a fitting testament to the utterly vacuous, impractical and sloganeering nature of left wing politics.
92- Andrea thanks- this link is depressing to say the least. This is virtually saying vote labour-get a police state. The politics of fear.
96. Mike, the British have a great ability to just keep their heads down and get on with it whatever the tone of the government. Its only if the government are seen as going soft in some way or suggesting that we need to hug a bomb belt bomber that they’ll react.
Asd a result I expect they won’t really notice the tone change.
98. Tyson, I’m not that surprised. I think Tom Watson is involved in the byelection machine and when he run the Hodge Hill campaign, some Lab leaflets could have been mistaken for BNP materials
http://www.geocities.com/hodgelab04/labhod0409a.jpg
It seemed rather a poor leaflet to me. I do n’t think the Tories or the Libdems are in favour of crack dens.
86
I think you are correct in that Cameron cannot unveil any hard policy until nearer an election. My own view is that the opinion n polls are wildly misleading at present and that vast swathes of the public will not vote Labour at the next election as they are disgusted by the Iraq war, the corruption and arrogant disregard for the public shown under the Bliar years. These people are the politically inactive, the kind that dont express a political opinion in the normal course of events. If Cameron can hold the project together until 6 months before an elecetion, even if behind in the polls, the presentation of centre right policies on EU, economic migration, defence spending and tax (if gordo hasnt bankrupted the country completely by then) will allow a swing sufficient to see them form a government.
96,
Yes if it continues and they aren`t seen as in control or percieved out of their depth.
The lower key response, might look like its dealing with a drama, when in fact its a crisis.
“This is virtually saying vote Labour - get a police state. The politics of fear.” (Tyson, 98).
Indeed, Tyson. But the fact that you, usually a very vocal Labour supporter see Labour’s Southall campaign in this way, is the one encouraging thing about it.
Let’s hope that all Labour supporters start to realise what the Blair-Brown-Bush project is all about.
59 Sean - you fear centrist coalitions. Isn’t that all the Parties are trying to be - centrist
Explosion at Heathrow reported!
possible explosion at Heathrow.
or maybe not?
Head of BAA at LHR says no explosion
Here is the question….how come the US isn’t suffering such attacks?
Anyone?
109. Sounds like some people i.e. passengers/visitors at Heathrow have contacted the media with this story because things are pretty chaotic at Heathrow due to security issues after putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 on why Heathrow is a bit all over the place.
Either that or its deliberate disinformation. You don’t have to actually blow up anything to cause distress and disruption.
Security expert on BBC saying maybe a central garage in UK fitting out these car bombs that are then directed to specific locations. Diana concert tomorrow…….. not good.
112. That is plausible because not a single thing exploded as they should have done. Which suggests, at least for the London 2 that the same bombmaker/template was involved and they/it was wrong.
BUT
That assumes there was a detonator in a conventional explosive sense, but it may be that the plan was for the car bombers to set the things on fire/detonate themselves in the most manual of manners to cause the load to explode.
As yet we havent heard any comment on detonators at all.
Time, perhaps, to look at the profile of every Muslim UK male age 20-40 who has recently spent some time in Pakistan.
Time, also, to halt all immigration therefrom. Until we know what the ongoing threat is.
Ooh, no, racist!
Also it’ll be interesting to see if that Jeep in Glasgow had English or Scottish plates. If it is Scottish, the central engineering works idea is a bit less likely. While its perfectly possible that cars can be stolen (or indeed bought from the likes of auctions) to order, taken to a central location kitted and then shipped out again, it would be a fair stretch of planning for them to actually take a car specifically with Scottish numberplates ship it most likely to England, fit it out then send it back up.
To be honest its the kind of specific of planning that most wouldnt pay attention to when planning such a series of acts. If they did plan to that degree then they are reasonably sharp, even of the execution stinks. If its an English number plate then the central workshop theory has a bit more credence though I’m not saying its so by any means just that its more plausible.
I hope that makes sense. Its all a series of possibilities at this stage.
Perhaps Leigh should support PR. He’d then get a left wing Labour Party, a right wing Tory Party, and a centrist Lib/SDP/wet Con Party.
I wonder whether the Glasgow attack is an imprtomptu one, maybe born from the frustration at the failure of the attacks on Friday
re 112, 113 they are not bombs, even of a home made variety. They are crud incendiary devices.
114. Only part of the story though Sean because the obviosu assumption is to look at Asians of Pakistani or Middle Estern origin.
I’d put my money that a disproportionate number of those who are true activists are actually fairly recent converts in particular white europeans that could readily turn up at camps in Pakistan or elsewhere. They tend to deliver larger numbers of radicals per head than the born Moslems, even though overall they may be a small proportion.
I’m due to fly out of Glasgow Airport tomorrow. Phoned the travel agent and they said to turn as up normal and they would contact us if that changes.
I just hope the government doesn’t over-react and stop me going on holiday!
109 - Heathrow is a distressing enough place to visit at the best of time, so I’m not surprised at the confusion.
110 - Good question about the UK vs US. I’m not really sure. The elephant in the living room is the Pakistan connection. There are plenty of migrants from Pakistan here in NY, but they appear to be keener on working hard than on causing trouble. I think the US education system seems to do a better job of inculcating national values than the UK system. Finally, it’s just a lot more expensive to fly from the US to Pakistan, deterring visits home and hence encouraging integration.
114 – Actually, not racist. As someone who has the dual misery of being (a) a frequent flier and (b) looking like a Pakistani (though not actually of Pakistani origin) I’m livid at the way this government has shied away from making the Pakistani community in the UK face up to its failings (terrorism, failure to integrate, drug use, abysmal levels of education). At the very least, let’s not make the problem worse – no more migration from Pakistan please.
Home Secretary raises terror level to CRITICAL….
118, Chris , incidenaries are often off by an explosive charge.
I take your point about the technalicalities about what is or not a bomb but it is a technicality.
Home Sec: ATTACK IMMINENT…
121. Yup, virtually all of this bollox can be laid, squarely, at the door of Labour party policy - in the form of multiculturalism. It’s encouraged a sense of victimisation and entitlement in ethnic communities while simultaneously favouring them at the expense of the white indigenous working class. These whites have since become embittered, and starting voting BNP. Further atomising our society.
Immigration policy has also been feeble and incompetent. The abolition of primary purpose was especially crass. The human rights act - entirely unnecessary - has hamstrung the courts. Muslim faith schools have been allowed - another disaster.
The list of Labour failings in terms of race, immigration, culture and identity is almost endless. What is especially galling is to see the way they have lately realised their appalling errors 10 years too late, 10 years after the rest of us told them they were screwing the country. Only now do they start bleating about Britishness.
Sheesh.
We were right, they were wrong. Plus ca change.
On top of it all, they compounded their extraordinary mistakes with an illegal and catastrophic war in Iraq, which has further alienated a Muslim community that already successfully ghettoised.
Quite a list of achievements, really.
MI5: High probability of further attacks..
I don’t know what Edward Leigh’s problem is.
We have a fairly strong immigration policy, we will reduce regulation in many areas, we will reduce taxation over a parliament and we will have a fairly strong defence.
What we won’t do is shout about those policies to the exclusion of all others as we will lose the next general election.
121. I was just polling slec but I can tell you that the UK has long been a haven for Islamic radicals. So much so the French used to complain when they were undergoing bomb attacks of their own no less than 20 years ago.
These people could come, set up base, spread the word and carry their expertise with them. I assume British governments just didnt see that this be used at home against the state because most of their activities were directed to causes outside/not involving the UK.
It has been argued that having them here mean’t they can be watched but the truth is that the British security agencies didnt watch them extensively until recent years. They did watch some of the likes of Lybian & Syrian attached types and some others under the request of other governments but radicalism led types were not really on the radar specifically because they were radicals.
Secondly these people are allowed to live in Britain but live separate from the rest of society in a way that US doesnt tolerate so much
127. Exactly right.
124. Just a touch of the stable door.
125 Seant. But do you have any proposals for the future? We are starting from where we are - nothing can change that. Are you in favour of copying the tougher approach of Europe (such as France and Denmark), or trying a softer approach by building bridges, or . . .or . . .what?
Rod, we don’t need to get too stressed about these guys. They’re a bunch of losers armed with some cans of petrol and boxes of nails. Yawn. They get no respect from me, nor do I fear them. Londoners give these morons a big shrug. When we mythologise them we give them far more credit than they deserve.
“bridges between communities”, I meant.
127, i didnt knwo any of those and I’m broadly a Tory supporter Benedict.
127. Edward Leighs problem is that he’s a dinosaur, stuck in the past and refuses to move into the future. “Tory values” has he puts it no longer apply in the real world and are exculsionary and reject the issues that we face today.
The sooner the conservatives finally put away dinosaurs like Leigh and his type the better for them.
131 - It’d be a start if the law returned to the way it was pre-1997. A hard line on immigration promotes integration, whereas ‘building bridges’ leads to separation. Community relations were far, far happier under the Tories in the 1990s than under Labour today. In France and Denmark, firm but fair policies have actually undercut the far right.
brown is on cnn right now….
blimey. what an extraordinary performance from Brown just now. Very different to Blair.