For some weeks Mr. Cameron’s friends in the media (such as the Telegraph group writer and editor of the Specator, Matthew d’Anconia) have been pointing to an upcoming speech that David Cameron was to make. This speech was intended to show what sort of politician Mr Cameron is, to define him – just as the first major foreign policy speech Mrs Thatcher made defined her (earning her the name the ‘Iron Lady’ from the Soviets – what was intended as an insult became a honoured name).
The speech was finally made on September 11th – on the day that the Iron Lady herself stood shoulder to shoulder with the Vice President in the United States (old, betrayed, hit by several strokes, the Lady still stood and walked ramrod straight – held up by courage alone).
Mr Cameron duly denounced anti-Americanism – it was “cowardice”, but then he said Britain must not be “slavish” in any alliance with the United States, and the American leadership was guilty of”‘sound bites”, lacked “humility” and that the American division of things into good and evil was “unrealistic and simplistic” (and so on and so on).
Leaving aside the point that when someone says that they are beyond good and evil, light and dark, (they are more sophisticated than old fashioned ideas of “right” and “wrong”) it tends to mean that they are evil, it was irritating to hear of Mr Cameron first denouncing anti-Americanism and then indulging in exactly that.
Mr Cameron is free to hold any opinion he wishes, even though I might suspect that his Yank bashing was less a matter of principle than an effort to get a favourable editorial in the Daily Mail (on the correct calculation that this newspaper hates the United States even more than it hates him, although some Daily Mail people such as Richard Littlejohn clearly despise what Mr Cameron said yesterday).
However, it is still unclear what Mr Cameron’s opinion actually is – for whilst he attacked the United States he did not say “the Iraq war is wrong”. David Cameron tried to have his cake and eat it as well, and thus playing to both pro and anti war people in his party.
Now being undecided about the Iraq war is not a crime and opposing the Iraq war is not a crime – I myself wrote against the idea of war, although I believed (and still believe) that once the war had started it must be carried on to victory.
I am not attacking Mr Cameron’s right to have an opinion, or his lack of clarity about what his opinion is – it is not even the general patronising tone of his abuse of the leadership of the United States that I object to. It is the date of his speech that is astonishing.
The anniversary of 9/11 is not the time to make this type of speech (far less to bill the speech as some equivalent of the ‘Iron Lady’ speech). If Mr Cameron really does not understand this it shows that just being born into a wealthy family and going to Eton and Oxford do not make a man a gentleman.
Cameron delendus est
Nobody seems to know what Cameron is about… (bit like Blair, except that Blair has shifted position so much but Cameron hasn’t actually stated any positions…).
I have to take you to task about him being anti-american.
I love america, I’m marrying an american from the mid-west (not some wishy-washy new yorker or something) but we both agree that US policy is dangerous, damaging for freedom in the US and abroad. It is presented in simplistic terms. Hell, my texan cousin and god-father both think this too.
Claiming that criticism of the US is anti-americanism is crass and stupid. Its like saying that unless you agree with the government you aren’t patriotic.
Attack Cameron for not having any definable position, attack him if you disagree with him, but I have not seen any evidence of anti-americanism.
A good friend will tell you when you’re wrong, in public if necessary. It is a poor friend who stands by and lets you destroy everything you hold dear.
I hesitate to assert who is or is not a gentleman; but being one is neither here nor there when it comes to leading a political movement. So what is the price of potatoes?
Speeches like Mr. Cameron’s drive more and more Americans towards isolationism.
If this is the kind of rhetoric we get from our so-called closest ally, what is the need for alliances in the first place?
I’m really having a hard time seeing why it would be a bad idea to pull our troops and navy to the U.S. borders, close those borders, severely restrict immigration and break off most relations with Europe.
I don’t believe yet that this would be a good thing, but every new speech like Cameron’s pulls me in that direction and I’m a major Anglophile.
I couldn’t listen to more than two seconds of him. Tory Camoron sunk in his own oil slick yesterday.
No, because to some of us it matters very much.
Quoting the Independent: “The Tory leader said the Bush administration’s strategy lacked patience and humility and had been presented through ‘unrealistic and simplistic’ sound bites.”
Quoting Cameron: “We are fighting for the principles of civilisation – let us not abandon those principles in the methods we employ.”
And, in a reference to Iraq, he said: “Liberty grows from the ground – it cannot be dropped from the air by an unmanned drone.”
Sounds like simplistic sound bites to me.
Also known as trash talk, cant, humbug, and bullshit.
“Liberty grows from the ground”
An indisputable fact that can be ascertained from a quick study of the history of revolutions in countries as diverse as France, Russia, China, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Argentina…
No more South Koreas!
“Let’s see…I can’t be anti-American because if, (no no when), I become Prime Minister we’re stuffed without the Yanks, but I have to give the snobs in the party something and I have to dodge the poodle bit”
“I know. I’ll bash Bush. That’s always good for a laugh and when I get in he’ll be gone anyway.”
The full speech is here, in the Guardian
Best regards
There are people I have come across who find the commemorations of 9/11 a bit chafing. They say “what about Palestine” or something like that, but it is usually pretty obvious that they are hateful creeps.
On reflection, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Cameron was consciously trying to reach out to such people in his speech (I would say John Snow is their patron saint).
I said I would never vote for Cameron when he lambasted shops for selling discount Chocolate Oranges, when he said we had to ‘be the change’, when he said people whop don’t support the welfare state are inhuman, when he said Israel had no right to wage war and countless other times, so I guess what I am going to say is devoid of any meaning, but …. I will NEVER vote for Cameron.
Paul, your lack of cynicism is touching. Hadn’t you noticed what a laughable thickie Dave is? All the indicators were so glaringly obvious how could you have missed?
Never mind that creep Cameron, Nigel Farage is now leader of UKIP. Why couldn’t the damn Tories choose someone more like that?
The gentleman thing is important. I’d rather we had a genuine socialist who really believed in his cause and was not in dept to the chattering classes of Notting Hill than a faux-politico such as Blair or Cameron.
Clem Attlee at least was a man who knew what homour and integrity meant.
Is “Dave” just putting this on because he thinks it makes him more electable or does he really believe it? I dunno. What I suspect is that Cameron hasn’t even thought about it. There is no substance to him.
Millie, you’re right. The leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition is Dave-nice-but-dim.
At least he isn’t Ming the hopeless.
I agree with Nick M. – being a gentleman is important in politics.
I do not mean gentleman as in “man who has a private income”, I mean “man of honour” – and for those people who say “we can not afford honour in politics” I say that you deserve to be governed by people with no honour.
As for Mr Cameron being a friend of the United States who is telling-it-like-it-is, not at all.
Let us say the correct course of action was to cut and run in Iraq – that is not what Mr Cameron has suggested.
Indeed he has not suggested anything at all, he has just done a bit of Bush bashing.
This is indeed antiAmericanism – because the people in the Conservative party (and in the Daily Mail) who hate the “vulgar” President Bush also hate “vulgar” America in general.
As for what Mr Cameron is about. I defend him against charges that he has not made his basic position plain – he has.
Mr Cameron and his allies are in favour of vast increase in government spending on the “public services” (even over the amount that finance minister Brown has already given us). And they are against any tax cuts that might cut off funds for this vast increase in government spending (Mr Cameron even took time off from his trip to India to denounce Conservatives who want lower taxes – this would threaten “economic stability” you see).
Mr Cameron is for “social justice”, and hates such “isms” as “capitalism” (he said so in his first speech as leader of the Conservative party), he is also in favour of a big increase in government overseas aid.
Mr Cameron is in favour of reductions of C02 emissions, but, at the same time, hostile to nuclear power (this contradiction may be explained by the infliuence, and financial contributions, of his rich kid friend “Zac” Goldsmith).
Mr Cameron is also against taking any power back from the E.U. (he even went back on the previous leaders’ policy of pulling out of the Common Fisheries Policy – the C.F.P. has been a terrible mess).
So Mr Cameron would continue to allow the E.U. to regulate almost all areas of national life without limit. Under Mr Cameron there would be ever more regulations just as there would be ever more government spending and (I believe) ever higher taxes.
As for internal party matters, Mr Cameron has further restricted the choice of candidates for seats in Parliament by the introduction of “A list” (supposedly to increase the number of women and ethnic minority Conservative M.P.s – but female or non white Conservative party members are not allowed to be candidates unless they are the general “candidate list” and this, like the “A. list”, is under the control of the leadership).
Indeed Mr Cameron has even suggested giving local Conservative Association members a “choice” of ONE candidate (a North Korean style “democracy”).
As for party finance, the various property deals and “loans” from unnamed people that Mr Cameron and his party Chairman Francis Maude have engaged in have yet to come to any criminal trial (and may never do so), but they are certainly odd.
Just as Mr Cameron’s past never led to a criminal trial – even though it was odd to.
Soft jobs in the Conservative party and (then) Conservative government when he was just down from Oxford (even though he had no great record of voluntary work for the Conservative party or other experience), then (when the Conservatives left office there was the P.R. work for Mr Green of Carlton television.
Again nothing criminal has been proven, just Mr Cameron going about saying to journalists “we are not using shareholders money to prop up On Digital, and if you say we are I will have you sacked”.
Of course Mr Green was (with Mr Cameron’s full knowledge) using shareholders money to prop up On Digital (which eventually collapsed anyway), but being dishonest and making threats is not criminal.
There are many accounts of Mr Cameron being “shifty”, “dishonest” and “poisonous” (and his choice of the disgusting Francis Maude as party Chairman lends weight to this view) – however to people who say “it does not matter if a politician is a bad man” or even “an effective politician must be a bad man” I do not suppose this matters.
What should matter to even these people is that Mr Cameron has never in his life shown any interest in profreedom ideas and his main line of policy is radically hostile to rolling back the state.
Those people who think that Mr Cameron is only being a statist in opposition and would be pro freedom in office are deluding themselves.
I note that Mr Cameron also attacked Israel for its “disproportionate” attacks on the Hez (“Party of God”) positions in the Lebanon.
In fact (of course) the government of Prime Minister Olmet and Defence Minister Peritz (spelling) was hopelessly weak and allowed the propaganda campaign in the media undermine the half hearted military action against the Hez attacks. And (of course) the Hez and their backers are not just in favour of the extermination of Israel – they are in favour of the extermination of all nations that reject the rule of Islam.
Instead of denoucing the media disinformation campaign, Mr Cameron supports it (even using the favoured buzz word “disproportionate”). And he does this whilst, at the same time, calling himself a “friend” of Israel.
Can David Cameron sink any lower?
Paul,
Thanks for the agreement. I have met gentlemen from all walks of life and cads from just as many.
I knew “Dave” had worked for Carlton. I didn’t know he was involved in the On Digital fiasco…
I had to try and sell that train-wreck of a service when I worked for BT. It was a bloody nightmare. The number of complaints from people who couldn’t get reception was monumental. And then when they found out how much getting a third party aerial guy in would cost…
So Dave has risen without trace? Lets hope he sinks without trace too.
I was talking with some rather left-wing people this weekend. We all agreed on one thing. The three “main” parties offer nothing to any of us.
Dave is a disaster if he loses. I fear he’d be even worse elected.
Shoulda kept William Hague.
Sadly Mr Hague has got himself an odd assistant these days.
But you are right about the Conservative party going for style over substance (the nice-but-dim stuff is an act of course – Mr Cameron is certainly not nice, but pretends to be well).
David Davis stated that he would get real powers back from the E.U., but the B.B.C. and much of the rest of the media said he was gray, had a broken nose, did not speak well (the B.B.C. focus group did not agree with that and declared that they found Mr Cameron’s words shifty and dishonest – but the B.B.C. did not exactly shout about this finding).
Mr Cameron offered gesture politics – for example instead of getting powers back from the E.U. the Conservative Euro M.P.s would sit with a different group in the European Parliament (and Mr Cameron has not even delivered this gesture).
And the party members (with a lot of media pressure) went for this “style” over substance.
Now I am not saying that David Davis is a libertarian or anything like that, but he did want to roll back the state a bit (and he has been going to pro freedom events at such organizations as the I.E.A. and the A.S.I. for many years) and he did want to get some power back from the E.U.
Mr Cameron was (in policy terms) a joke candidate – and the party members voted for him.
Just as they will vote for the (absurd) “Built to last” document that Mr Cameron has sent them – indeed people are telling me how brave they are NOT to vote (not to vote “no” – just not to vote) as if they think that not voting (as opposed to voting against Mr Cameron document) will make any difference.
For non British readers I had better explain what the “A list” is a bit more.
I do not mean “a list” – there already was a “candidate list” and Conservative Associations were forbidden to pick people as candidates who were not on this list (which is disgusting in its self).
The “A. list” is a much shorter list of favoured candidates (not all women or ethnic minorities – indeed if one is a anti E.U. or generally pro freedom women or black man it is rather hard to get on the “A. list”) which further restricts choice in what Mr Cameron considers winable seats. And (of course) there are further proposals to increase the power of the leadership group (Mr Cameron and his associates).
“How can Conservative party members put up with all this stuff?”
Well that is the basic point. There are many nice people in the Conservative party – but there has to be a point where you say to people who allow other people to urinate on them “the people who are pissing on you are bad people, but you are cowards to allow them to piss on you”.
First off, I certainly will not be voting for Dave.
He struck me in exactly the same way as Blair , when I first saw him.
Smarmy, self opinionated and without a principle or scruple to his name.
Here’s my Nostradamus moment.
Dave will narrowly lose the next election, to someone who isn’t Scots. The UKIP party having picked up enough of the old Tory vote to deny Dave the outright victory he could have won had he voiced more robust policies (any friggin policies!).
The Lib/Dems will not do anywhere near as well as they thought they aught (no change there then!)
There will be a clamour amongst the Liberals to bring back a sobered up champagne Charlie Kennedy and amongst Torys for a reluctant but dutiful (I owe it to my country) Hague.
Hague wins by a landslide at the next election and we all live happily ever after!!!
How’s that?
these ant cameron comments are a joke.
Go ahead – encourage the party to lose another election and the one after that.
get real
Cameron denounced anti americanism in his speech – it needed saying – and said working with America was important.
The time will come when we will have a loony democrat administration and a Tory one in the UK – we will be glad to keep our distance.
Quite frankly I think invading iraq was right – but Bush and Blair have got the politics of it wrong and we have to face up to that.
As for the odious Farage – is anyone seriously saying they would vote for him rather than the tories? are you mad?
Perhaps his speech would have been better received had it been delivered in French, and in Brussels.
Poor “Call me Dave”,he has yet to realise that this country does not want another Sammy Glick at the helm.
He is not a gentleman,nor is he a Conservative,he could serve his country best by retiring from politics and entering a career in social work.
Trevor Holcroft…
We do exactly that all the time at Samizdata, such as here and here and here and here. It would be a disaster for a Blairite Tory party to win the next election.
And he then proceeded to make a bunch of absurd sound-bite anti-American statements. Read the whole thing please.
As you do not say why Farage is odious and why supporting him is a sign of madness, your remark is worthless. Try again please with a few details and an argument.
Being critical of some U.S. policies isn’t anti-American.
Blanketing all U.S. policy as being “dangerous” is anti-American.
Additionally being opposed to the following:
Is pretty much anti-American, and a bad idea to do. Except perhaps militarism? I am also pretty tired of Hollywood, but I still watch new movies.
For some reason there are a lot of anti-American people who refused to be recognized as being anti-American, as if it discredits their objections. The problem with those people is that they are so irrational their whole world revolves around America and how it is coming after them in the night hiding in dark allyways or hiding under the bed waiting for them to go to the bathroom at midnight.
okay well here we are
Iraqi Prime Minister Makes First Official Visit to Iran
this ain’t good
I have just read the whole speech. Thanks for the link, Nigel.
I think most of the commenters here should read it rather than spout their usual anti-Cameron bile.
Whilst most of Cameron’s vague utterances since becoming leader have been highly disappointing (and i hope and pray, opportunistic), this one isn’t.
There’s nothing wrong with the timing, Paul.
It’s a good speech and makes many valid points. There’s hope for the man yet.
Eaton and Oxford, isn’t there something ironic here?
Oh! The Tories just don’t change, not even their selection of this leader, reverting to type is just so normal. Trimming and being principle free is so, so normal too. Thatcher was truly an aberration, we just got lucky. I remember those heady days, the Alternative Bookshop and Beeper that cat etc. etc. Reality is another thing though.
For those of you who are libertarians, we have a lot of work to do, and maybe many years of action to move what appears to be immobile. Dr Chris gave us fair warning, that Taming this beast could take generations.
Nuff said.
Yet more worthless gum-flapping from the Boy Wonder – he really doesn’t have a single policy in the wide world, does he? He’s a poor soft-Left imitation of Blair. Next thing he’ll be weighing in on the wonders of Islam, and the need to fill Britain’s “spiritual void” with a good dose of Arabian superstition.
In fact, I hope that’s exactly what he does – it will destroy the Tory Party (which is long overdue, and necessary for the health of Britain) and allow hard-right parties such as the UKIP or the BNP (hopefully after purging any neo-nazis that might still be lurking around) to rise in its place.
Which will tear the Establishment asunder!
Steve Edwards
I am not hostile to your vision,but I would truly like to know how you(and others) imagine that the demise of the Tory party is going to lead on to the rise of UKIP or the BNP,anytime soon.
How do you believe that will happen?Not why, but how.
To win power in Britain you need to win a majority of MPs at a general election.That requires organisation,money and above all committed people on the ground.How long do you think it would take either UKIP or the BNP to go from zero MPs to 320 or so?It’s difficult for me to imagine it happening at all and impossible to imagine it happening in less than 3 elections or 15 years approximately.In the meantime we would be ruled uninterrupted by Labour or the Lib Dems.Seeing what they’ve done in 9 years the thought of another unopposed 15 years doesn’t bear thinking about.
Despite all the doubts the overwhelming priority must be to get this lot out,otherwise we’re all ******
I am going to take Pommy’s advice and read the speech to see if it is as bad as some say. Let’s at least try to be fair to Cameron. That said, I think the timing, and the sniping at neo-cons, was lamentable, and Paul M. is right to be upset on that score.
The conservative parties have literally fallen apart on about three occasions throughout Australian history, and normally bounced back within an election or two to destroy the Labor Party. It’s usually through a combination of existing MP’s splintering and reforming, outside bodies getting organised (business and constituent leagues), and having the right leader at the right time, to pull it all together. I can’t vouch for Nick Griffin’s electability, but his intellect appears a few notches above ol’ Davie-boy.
I think that the BNP/UKIP will have to rid themselves of the skinhead element (at least in the former), and develop some kind of mass appeal to cultural conservatives, and of course come to some arrangement with the business community. Easier said than done. Keep in mind that the Conservatives in Canada went from two seats to minority government in, what, three elections? At least the Tories are starting from a higher base.
First of all to compare the U.K.I.P. to the B.N.P. is disgusting (“but I did not say they were the same” Mr Fordwych will say), it reminds me of when Mr Cameron (backed up by Francis Maude and “Hezza”) called U.K.I.P. people “racists” – he produced no evidence, it was just a smear campaign (typical of people like Cameron, Maude and “Hezza”).
By the way a “United Europe” is an old idea of Fascists and National Socialists, and although the B.N.P. may be against at the moment, the founding fathers of British Fascism (such as Sir Oswald himself) were strongly supportive of Britain being part of a United Europe.
Indeed (as several books have pointed out) the detailed plans for a European Central Bank and a single currency were based on plans drawn up by the Nazis.
As for Mr Cameron’s speech. He denounced antiAmericanism and then indulged in it.
“It is not antiAmerican to suggest different policies” – that is exactly what Mr Cameron did NOT do. He did NOT say “get out of Iraq” (or anything like that) – it was just Bush bashing (using the polite media language that makes it worse that open hostility) with a bit of Jew bashing put in as well.
I am a great friend of the Jews, but……….
No suggestion of how to defeat the Hiz in Lebanon (he did not say “there should have been a big ground invasion from day one” or suggest ANY alternative battle plan) – just a lot of media buzz words.
I would rather he just said “death to America and death to the Jews” rather than all this “I am your friend, but….” stuff – it is dishonest and cowardly.
I despise these written-in-media-code speeches.
The latest twist in the David Cameron story is the speech last night (reported in today’s Daily Telegraph) where after denouncing any idea of tax cuts for weeks Mr Cameron now says he is considering ten billion pounds of tax reductions by increasing the tax threshold (the level of income at which people start paying income tax) for families with children.
Of course he also said there would be more government child care under the plan (i.e. lower taxes and more spending), but it is the first time he has come out with a possible suggestion for tax reductions.
The plan contradicts what he has been saying for some time, but I have to welcome it.
The trouble is that I do not believe he would do it. One of the little know facts about the last general election is that most people did not believe that the Conservatives would reduce taxes if they were elected – after the E.R.M. (forced on Mrs Thatcher about a month before the lady was forced out of office) and the antics of the John Major government, most people just do not believe the Conservatives about tax cuts (or anything else).
If the Conservative party was serious about winning the next general election it would elect as leader someone who was plainly honest and was knowlegable enough about economic matters to argue for a policy over a period of years.
As even the B.B.C. focus group noticed, Mr Cameron is not an honest man and (in spite of, or BECAUSE OF, his first class degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from the University of Oxford) he does not know enough about economic matters to sound credible when he is talking about them.
The present Conservative lead in the polls is caused by the troubles of the Labour government – there is no strength in the Conservative support.
Perhaps Paul, you might re-read my post and utilise your talent for clairvoyance to answer the question it poses.
How ,in practical terms,is another defeat for the Tories going to lead to the rise to power of a genuine right wing libertarian alternative anytime soon ? Concerning the BNP,bear in mind that you don’t always get what you want .
Sidebar comment on “beyond good and evil”, if you’ll pardon the self-pimpage.
I note that Mr Fordwych has not apologised for tyring (in a underhand way) to smear the U.K.I.P.
I am not a member of the U.K.I.P. and have voted Conservative my whole adult life, but I still resent tricks like “the U.K.I.P. and the B.N.P.”
As for Mr Fordwych’s question:
If the Conservative party remains as it now is, a victory at the next general election would neither further the cause of liberty nor regain any liberty for the nation (indeed things would continue to get worse, government spending and regulations [mostly E.U. regulations] would continue to increase).
It would be like John Major’s victory in 1992 – it would discredit the Conservative party and bring back the Labour party at the next election with a landslide.
Actually I do not believe that Mr Cameron and his group (Francis Maude and the rest of them) are vote gainers, but the above still stands.
The Conservative party must either reform or get out of the way.
By reform I do not just mean get rid of Mr Cameron (and associates), adopt decent polices and argue for them well. I also mean internal party reform.
Party finance should be honest, no more vast debts (and the money spent is rather hard to track), dodgy “loans”, and odd property deals. Spending should be in line with voluntary donations.
Also local Conservative Associations should be allowed to pick any Conservative party member they want as a candidate for any office. There should be no more “candidate list” (still less an “A. list”).
A lot of Mr Cameron’s talk about an open, democratic party is actually correct – it is his deeds that are wrong.
Even the idea for primaries is not a bad one – as long as it was a vote of paid up Constituency Association members and there was a choice of candidates (not a North Korea style vote of support for one candidate).
Although there might have to be two rounds of voting – with anyone standing in the first round and the top two candidates running off against each other in the second round.
However, if the Conservative party refuses to reform and continues to be an organization where the membership are not told where the money goes (Constituency Association accounts, such as my own in Kettering, are tottally different from Central Office accounts – the latter are a farce) and who can be a candidate is decided by the centre – well then it has no future.
I have no axe to grind in this. I am 41 and have no position in life (I am never going to be candidate for Parliament), it is matter of turning the Conservative party into an honest organiztion – a body fit to provide the government of the United Kingdom (which it is not at present – whether it won an election or not).
“You do not need all this reform – just trust the leadership”. Trust men like David Cameron? That would be absurd.
On policy we to control government spending and regulations (whether E.U. or other) and it would be folly to trust Mr Cameron (and associates) on such matters. I would not trust these men with money or in any personal dealing – and I certainly do not trust them in matters of the nation.
So “how would Mr Cameron’s defeat at the next election further the cause of liberty” – well (assuming Mr Cameron is still leader at the time of the next election and has not had a “Road to Damascus” experience) it would either mean that the Conservative party finally reformed itself (the first step of which must be to get rid of such people as David Cameron and Francis Maude) or that it died.
If there really is no chance for reform – if it is just a matter of “David Cameron will lead us to office and that is what matters” (although, I repeat, I think that the idea that Mr Cameron is a vote getter is profoundly mistaken) then it would be better for the Conservative party to die NOW.
M.P.s should defect (quite a few talk privately of doing so – but they still have not done so) and either help build up the U.K.I.P. or create a new political party.
Actually such a dramatic move would get public attention and might well lead to success at the next election – but if it did not at least there would be a foundation to build on for the future.
The Conservative party in its present state is rotten – in both leadership, policy, and internal affairs. As such it is unfit for office.
Paul, if I were a more sensitive soul I would be offended, but instead I am just puzzled, as to why you believe I was trying to smear UKIP.My original post was in reply to the previous poster who had linked the 2 parties.(the wording in both posts is exactly the same)
I have in fact twice voted for UKIP in the past few years and would prefer to see them form a government ahead of any other party.Unfortunately it aint gonna happen anytime soon.
As it happens I agree with the thrust of your original post”How Cameron chose to mark September 11″ particularly as it relates to the USA
I also agree with most of your analysis of the current state of the Tory party as per your last post.
Where we are not in agreement is in your assessment of what would probably follow another Tory defeat.
What you are looking for is a revolution -relative to British political history in the past 100 years-and revolutions are chancy affairs.The Tory party would not just collapse and disappear.It would struggle on. splitting the right wing vote 3 ways ;Tory ,UKIP and (sorry) BNP.
The outcome would, in my view,probably be rule by Labour/Lib Dems for a generation.After that our country would be past resurrection.
That is my fear and while I accept that fear is usually a bad reason to base a decision on ,nevertheless
I will hold my nose and vote for my namesake at the next election.The overriding imperative is to get rid of this lot before they do any more damage and no one else can do that.
Steve Edwards and others
Have you actually read any of the BNP’s policies? They are more statist and socialist than the LibDems. There is nothing “right-wing” about this party.
Any collapse of the Tory party may aid UKIP but it will do nothing for the deranged scum that is the BNP.
Amidst the ashes of Cameron’s Conseratives, I would like to see the emergence of a new party that places the interests of the ‘working’ (as in employed) classes at its core (say, The Enterprise Party). The rich and the idle are well represented by Labour and Conservatives, middle-income earners have no champion.
pommygranate,
You got there first. The BNP is many things but the last thing it is is libertarian in any sense of the word. They are a fine example of fascism=communism. I’ve checked out their policies on a number of occasions when I’ve fancied a laugh. They’ve toned down a bit recently but they are still mad as hatters. If we (for a moment) take the racism out of the equation their policies on the economy, international relations and pretty much everything else are nuts.
They got a slick website which makes them sound almost sensible but dig through it and you’ll find forums where they celebrate “Paki bashing”. And then there is their merchandise. Wanna bust of Odin in plastic… You now know where to go.
I’m sure Nick Griffin is a bright lad but I disagree with almost everything the BNP stands for.
Hmm, I guess it’s your turf, and you’d know more than I do. I have heard quite a bit about Griffin, and he seemed to be a fairly impressive chap, although I am aware that some pretty unsavoury characters are lurking behind him.
By the way – I was the one who “smeared” the UKIP by listing them with the BNP. Please be assured, I did not intend to “smear” them, but point out a possible alternative to the Tories. Both the BNP and the UKIP are relentlessly hostile to the EU, and for similar reasons, so I figured they might be appealing to the same voters.
I have read what Steve Edwards and David have to say and I have checked back up the thread – and they are correct about when the “U.K.I.P. – B.N.P.” link was made.
Therefore I was wrong and I must apologize to David – which I now do. I am sorry.
As for the B.N.P. being hostile to the E.U. because the E.U. is statist (one of the main reasons that U.K.I.P. people, and I know many of these people well, are hostile to it), errrr I think that is a mistaken impression of the B.N.P.
On David’s saying that he will vote for a Cameron led Conservative party in order to try and get Labour out – such a position is absurd. It fails to understand that there is no basic difference between the two.
Either the Conservative party must be reformed, or M.P.s (and ordinary party members) should leave it and either help build up the U.K.I.P. or found a new party (I know I am saying something that myself and other people have already said, but it seems it needs to be said again).
Time for reform is clearly running out – the vote on “Built to Last” closes on Monday, and the leadership will regard any “yes” vote (regardless of turnout) as a mandate for their antics.
The Conservative Party Conference will then be upon us (start of October), and my local Euro M.P. (Roger Helmer) may well not wait beyond then to have the Conservative party “whip” restored to him (it was withdrawn because powerful people objected to his effort to expose corruption in the E.U.).
Some of Roger Helmer’s fellow Conservative Euro M.P.s will most likely follow him out of the Conservative party – and some members of the British House of Commons (although it is unclear how many) may well follow them out.
The response of the leadership to all this is to invite William Hutton (the ardent statist of “The State we are in” and other works) to speak at the Conservative party conference and to organize various stunts based on television game shows.
David, your namesake is a lost cause.
I must agree with what Paul Marks has to say about the “Camerloons”. Not so long ago “Dave” said we should not complain about the Public Sector workers. Why, they are all talking strike action and Mersey side Firemen are acting.
Trevor Holcroft says that Cameron wants to work with the U.S.A., funny way of going about it, especially on 11th September. And how will he square that idea with the EU, about which Dave apparently knows nothing, zilch, nada? Incidently, I would certainly prefer an honourable man to lead my Country.
With respect Paul,what is absurd is to imagine that what you propose wont lead to what I fear or something similar.
I am well aware of the similarities between Cameron’s Tories and Blair’s New Labour but I have to live in the real world and in that world the metropolitan mediaocracy is never-let me repeat that-never, going to give a fair crack of the whip to any party proposing the kind of policies I- and I presume you- would like to see.I am as frustrated as anyone with the increasingly crackpot ideas coming from the Tories but to write it only emphasizes again what an awful position we are in.Truly a rock and a hard place.
To imagine winning an election with a party which currently has 0 MPs and would have to battle for its core vote, never mind any other,against 2 other parties (yes I am aware of the statist nature of many of the BNP’s policies ,but the first time you hear someone on the BBC describing them as anything other than “The far right BNP” I’ll buy you a drink)and against the weight of the opposition of practically the whole UK media is ,absent an existential crisis such as might be engendered by terrorism or the like, to live in fantasyland.
Meanwhile this country goes even further down the tubes.No thank you.
To bring about the changes I would like to see it will first be necessary to deal with the media ,in particular the BBC.That may not be done in office but it definitely won’t be done in opposition .It could be said that it won’t be done by Cameron.It definitely wont be done by Labour.
The same holds true over a whole range of issues.The Tories might do it,Labour definitely wont.
In the real world,where there are no honourable men on offer only politicians, thats usually as good as it gets.
David you just do not “get it” (to use the modern term).
In “the real world” (or any other) there is no basic difference between Mr Cameron and co and Mr Blair and co.
The harm that you rightly say is being done by the Labour government, would carry on being done by a Cameron government.
Nor do I believe that Mr Cameron is really the vote winner that his people say he is – the more people see of him the more they understand that is a dishonest establishment man (establishment man in the modern, post 1960’s, sense).
Even if he won the election (and I do not think he will win) David Cameron would be another Edward Heath (but without the honourable military record) – a man who would both undermine what is left of liberty and what is left of the other traditions of his country.
Mr Blair is not demon from Hell – he is a product of the modern system (for example what ideas a man has to believe in and how a man has to behave to “get on” in elite universities and in elite jobs), Mr Cameron is the product of the same system.
David Cameron has the same basic beliefs and values as A.L. Blair (whether we call him “son of Blair” or “heir of Blair” is not important – although it is odd to have a Blair type person as leader of the main opposition party just when the voters are getting sick and tired of Mr Blair).
Mr Cameron will not be a rebel challenging the decline of Britian (smashing the B.B.C. and so on) – it is not in his nature.
As for a party with zero M.P.s winning the next election – I agree that this would be very difficult.
So either the Conservative party will have to reform (the first step of which would be to get rid of David Cameron and Francis Maude) or Conservative M.P.s will have to switch to another party (or create a new one).
So that a political party does NOT have to go from zero M.P.s to victory in one election.
Mr Cameron does not understand the enemy…he just made himself out to be a weak willed weasel to the islamofascists.
Europeans will get over their anti Americanism when they desperately flee here when shariah law becomes the law of the land in the new Eurabia.
When commenting on Blogs I am always conscious of being a visitor in someone else’s house and have no wish to overstay my welcome, so I will try to keep this short.I am also aware that my views on this subject go a bit against the grain in this place.
Re.Cameron ;A month after he was elected I posted (on Laban Tall’s blog 5 Jan.)
“it’s beginning to look as if the best we can hope for is that Cameron somehow wins the election but on his first day of cycling to work as PM has a nasty encounter with one of Ken’s bendy buses.”
A bit crass perhaps,but I think by then I’d “got it”
As for the rest, if the Tories lose, I very much hope your vision is right ,the Tory party is renewed, (possibly under Gove or Hague ) and sweeps to victory in 8 or so (very) long years from now.
But if not,God help us.
Paul
I really think it is you who does not “get it”.
Cameron was elected leader for one reason – the Tory party sensed he was the man to make their party electable once more.
Everything he has subsequently said and done is with this aim in mind.
Before his ascendancy, the Tory party was in pieces. It was so deeply unfashionable that even its natural voters were too embarassed to admit their support.
Cameron is making it ok for voters to like his party. Jamie Oliver recently said that “I like the man”. Only 12 months ago it would have been commercial suicide for a celebrity so dependant on his public image to admit liking the leader of the Tory party. This is no longer the case.
Blair made one critical mistake – blindly supporting Bush in his disastrous invasion of Iraq. Cameron is trying to be Blair minus Iraq (and devotion to America).
When pitted against a surly Brown, he will win.
As to whether this is in the country’s best interests, is not Cameron’s main concern. His job is to get the Conservative party back into power by making it socially acceptable to vote Tory. He is succeding.
It remains to be seen how much he is succeding but I see it as my job to try and attack his support amongst natural (or at least former) Tory voters by pointing out that it is pointless to wish for a Tory victory if it will just result in more Blairism.
Many decades ago I learned that anyone who will lie for me, will lie to me.
It would pay to keep this in mind when predicting the future actions of Mr Cameron.
Perry
I am sure you’re right. A vote for Cameron is a vote for inaction, a vote to bumble along hoping that the wheels dont fall off, a vote to appease as many people as possible, a vote to ignore the issues of the day, a vote for short-termism.
However, i dont see the country being ready to face tough choices as they were in 1979.
The economy is just fine. Everyone who wants a job has one. House prices are high. The NHS still works (albeit just). Crime is low (albeit rising). Immigration is an irritant (not a threat, yet).
Whilst the population is content to sedate itself with the drugs of television and celebrity, there is no call for a radical leader.
The next time you’re on the tube, make a note of what people are doing; 50% will be reading gossip mags, 25% reading free lite-news papers and the other 25% will be sedated by their ipods.
This is not the sign of a population that wants radical change.
Midwestener is on good form here:
“Many decades ago I learned that anyone who will lie for me, will lie to me.”
Best regards
O.K. I should not have used the words “get it” – sorry.
However, voting for a David Cameron led Conservative party is not a vote for “inaction”.
It is a vote for more government spending and more regulations (both E.U. and other). Just as vote for a Gordon Brown (or another person) led Labour party is.
As for Mr Cameron being good for the chances of an election victory for the Conservative party. The sort of people who really like what Mr Cameron says and does are the people who would never vote Conservative this side of Hell freezing over (he is not going to covert them – they will say nice things, but they will not VOTE Conservative).
What he will do (if he stays on as leader) is to influence even more Conservative mided people to stay at home.
You see, contrary to the myth, the Labour party has not managed to get lots of Conservative voters to vote for them – mostly the missing Conservative votes are people who now stay at home. And they stay at home because they (quite rightly) think that the Conservative party can not be trusted on policy (for example they do not believe that there will be any tax cuts, and they do not believe that a Conservative party government will stand up to the E.U. – and they are right on both counts) and they think the Conservative party is controlled by corrupt people (and they are correct about that to).
Mr Cameron is not going to convince these once Conservative voters on policy, and he is not going to convince them on personal honesty.
So he does not win the next election (whatever the opinion polls say now).
The pro government spending voters vote for Mr Brown (or whoever) and a lot of the anti big government people (and anti E.U. people) stay home – or vote U.K.I.P.
As I (and others) have said. Conservatives (either party members or M.P.s) have two options – either reform the party (starting by getting rid of David Cameron and Francis Maude) or give up on the party.
If the U.K.I.P. is weak in (for example) not having M.P.s – this is something that can be changed by Conservative party M.P.s switching over.
Just perusing a few threads from last year, when I come across this — unchallenged — assertion.
The spirit of Pangloss is clearly alive and well. Does “pommygranate” live in the UK? “The NHS still works“? Depends on how exactly one defines “works”. “Crime is low“? As compared with what? The crime in Jamaican slums, perhaps? The UK is one of the most lawless countries in the developed world. …Of course, you might choose instead to believe the statistics adduced by the
political placemenheads of our policeforceservice.Ye gods.