We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Calling all Tory apologists Again and again, when people here on Samizdata and elsewhere pointed out that there was nothing ‘conservative’ about ‘Dave’ Cameron, various Tory apologists kept saying “oh, but Dave does not really think those things!”…
I look forward to them now explaining how the Right Honourable Member for Witney can be making common cause for an authoritarian socialist like Polly Toynbee.
Perhaps the few remaining members of the dwindling faithful who voted for this jackass to be their leader should repent their ways and go join a real conservative party before ‘Dave’ does the ‘full Toynbee’ and backs the forcible suppression of all private education, confiscation of private wealth (oh, sorry, he’s already decided to back that) and nationalisation of whole industries like dear Polly would like.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I suppose the issue, really, is whether he considers himself a conservative Englishman or an English conservative; or, dare I say it, even British?
This whole thing smacks of the Clinton/Blair ‘third way’, and though I have little faith that bi-partisan politics is forging a steady path: liberal centrism seems to often miss the point entirely as though it were swinging at the moon with a golf club.
Personally, I’d suggest they all went back to university (if they ever went in the first place:it is seldom apparent), ditched all that old-school economics nonsense and started reading some contemporary visionaries. Baudrillard has more to say about modern market forces today than Adam Smith ever dreamed existed (no disrespect meant to him); and whatever happened to Hayek? Possibly the most heinously ignored genius/nobel-prize-winning-economist of the 21st century.
Time to grow up, move on.
Eat more fish and veg, get some exercise, spend less time watching TV. These baby boomers think they can hold onto the planet with their outmoded ideas (and property assets) to the grave (which they likely can): at least know this.
I carry a party card. I’ve stood locally. I’ve dropped leaflets for days on end. I’ve walked through rain and listened to old women on doorsteps until my ears bled. For a cause. Not for power, for a flipping cause. Hour upon hour of convincing people that a free society is the way forward.
And then they give us this. To say I am furious is an understatement. Do these people believe in NOTHING. They’ve never lived on a council estate and seen the problems and their causes but they presume to tear up every bit of philosphy that’s driven half the party for a quarter of a century and tar us as ‘right wing extremists’.
To sit at some Tory events a few years ago was painful. Lots of guys who thought that singing ‘land of hope and Tory’ was a hilarious lark and being in the Conservatives was about black tie dinners. Now these same guys have grown up and finding they have failed to learn any of the ideas they once purported to stand for (when they weren’t drunk), they turn around and claim to be moderates against the ideologues (i.e. the guys who read books).
Ditching much of traditional Conservative thinking since 1945, he will accept the idea of “relative” poverty — meaning the poorest in society should advance as overall living standards rise.
He will also back the redistribution of wealth, a traditional Labour theme.
WoW. didnt know things where so bad on the other side of the pond. Accusations like like that against American politicions could get them labeled as socialists and yes that is still considered bad over here.
Funny thing is our politicos do believe in such things but use pretty words liek equality and social justice to mask their real evil intentions.
Civilisation is a fucking failure. I cant wait for the end of the whole mess.
The problem is the wrong kind of people are attracted to career politics.
A bit like postmen.
The other problem is most people (the decision swaying majority) are either stupid or uninterested, and the politicians know this.
This is why, perhaps, most political debate on TV is shockingly kak.
I once visited Douglas Hurd (then MP for Witney) on a politics A-level trip (1989, I believe it was). Pre-designated “smart” school-kids stood up and asked pre-designated “smart” questions while he doodled in a notebook. Says it all, really.
My Mother met David Cameron. He stopped his – needless to say – 4×4 landrover for a chat while she was watering the garden a while back. Very nice chap, apparently. This image will likely bring him in as the next PM, provided he treads sufficiently well-trodden watered-down political ground. Fools rush in. Cheer up all you blue-bloods: who says he has to do anything he pledges once he’s in power? He’s an Etonian: he can do anything he likes with a sweeping, sensitive sense of superiority even Tony Blair could not publicly tolerate. He could be the next Margaret Thatcher…
Boris has an amusing but probably inaccurate take on it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HZOSJHHY0YKG1QFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/11/23/do2301.xml
I have said it before, “Dave” is just Ted Heath without the shoulder shrugging. The Tory party is returning to its roots as a standardized, Eurocentric, statist and quasi socialist behemoth. This evening I see on 18Doughty Street that, once again, the politicians want to dip further into the public purse to keep their wretched political parties financially afloat. Thus I don’t hold out much hope in the short run that much will change, the rest of my lifetime to be precise. This intellectual war is generational, get used to it.
Libertarianism, if it means anything at the moment to hoy poloi, will only be taken seriously when there is a critical mass of opinion leaders and activists out there, as I have said, and I repeat, the struggle is generational. A cursory read of some of the libertarian tactical notes by the Libertarian Alliance, and in particular those by Dr Chris Tame, show that he has no illusions that much will change in the short run. This is why Baroness Thatcher is largely a memory now.
I recall those heady days of the Alternative Bookshop, beeper the cat and so on. It was mostly an illusion of success, the real fight is from now on. This web site is one of a few that are expanding the circle, a real need for years to come. Bravo for doing it.
Back to the moment. Is the UKIP the route to go, probably (or something like it) but will many go there? Allow the jackasses out there to get state funding and it will be more than two generations in the coming!
Well, we welcome you all at UKIP; come my little libertarian pretties, join us. We have right on our side…
DK
At little while ago I read an article that argued Cameron was deliberately annoying traditional Conservatives. His aim, it was said, was to provoke them into attacking him publicly, whereupon the so-called “Middle Ground” floating voters would have proof that he really was different from the still-reviled Tories. Nothing he could say, it was claimed, would convince the floating voter as much as the opprobrium of Redwood, Tebbit et al.
I found this article fairly persuasive at the time, and events since have only made it seem more so to me. So I have stuck by a simple resolution: to say nothing, decry nothing, but quietly to vote UKIP.
emptymirror writes:
“Personally, I’d suggest they all went back to university (if they ever went in the first place:it is seldom apparent)…”
Wrong. University is where most of these idiots had their heads stuffed with cottonwool. The problenm is not lack of exposure to Leftist idealogues in humanities departments, it is lack of experience doing real jobs in real life.
I’m afraid you may have right on your side UKIP but you dont have the figures. I have voted for you in the European Elections, hell I may even vote for you in a National one, but I live in Bristol West. A constituency that was tory for 112 years before 1997, when Olive from on the buses won it for labour (no that’s a bit unfair Valery Davey cant help the way she looks,well a few less bicuits perhaps!). The winner last time was a Lib/dem, a mr Williams, of whom I know nothing, like what he believes in (like all lib/dems) for instance.
But mine being an affluent and educated area, it looks like they may be around for a while, because frankly we are not hurting in my ward. Things are good, people earn good money and a “liberal” attitude pertains.
It takes trouble like the dead going unburied and the rubbish and rats piling up in the streets to affect real political change.
I just watched Ms Toynbee on Question Time. She either has a remarkable memory or is in the habit of repeating her articles by rote, such was the closeness of her replies, to the article she wrote in the Guardian today.
The woman is an economic illiterate. Her witless analogy of the caravan crossing the dessert, whereby the leaders (the rich) are way out front and the stragglers (the poor) are falling so far behind that they are not part of the same caravan is so stupid as to be beyond belief. If both halfs of the caravan are not attached in some way (and of course they are economically) then the poor are destined to die a miserable death in the dessert, without the rich to provide social security for them. The rich would say good riddance but Polly will cry crocodile tears and keep sending her sons to private schools nevertheless. Polly is close to the front of the caravan you see!
Champaigne socialists never will get it will they?
Oh and back to UKIP they polled 480 votes round here last election, the Lib/Dems polled 20,000 How much canvassing could I possibly do to turn it round for you folks!!??
Despite my handle I voted UKIP last time.
And I will next time as well.
I know they arent going to get in but you have to vote for what you believe. So happens I live in a safe Labour seat anyway, so a vote for UKIP is no more wasted than it would be if it was for the Tories, and if it bumps up UKIP’s national vote a bit so much the better, I’m sure share of the vote will be talked about even if UKIP don’t get a single MP. (Which they wont).
When it comes to Euro-elections UKIP will /always/ have my vote I think, unless the Tories really do have a change of heart.
Perry
I have always held the opinion that Cameron is an excellent brand manager. Recent events have only confirmed this view.
His inheritance is straightforward – a broken and unfashionable brand. In a prior life, i too was a brand manager and was also given a broken, unfashionable brand.
The only way to convince people that the brand really has changed is to vigorously attack and provoke the brand’s loyal but dwindling customer base.
It is brutal but effective.
Ditching Churchill for Polly Toynbee? They’ll be spilling their port in the golf clubs of Weybridge. Cycling to work? ‘Bloody gimmick’ says the Brigadier. Hug a Hoodie? Utterly preposterous.
But it registers with voters. Dave’s gamble (and it’s a big one) is that for every five disgruntled Tory voters he loses to UKIP, he will pick up three from the LibDems and three from Labour. On the task of getting the Conservatives back in power, he is doing an outstanding job.
However, as to the question of whether this is all a ruse or whether this reflects his deep seated views, i am, sadly, changing my mind.
Deleted: completely off-topic
May I be blunt?
You stupid fucking Brits have always been susceptible to communist moles. The communists can plant a mole in any one of your institutions, any time and you are utterly impervious to reason.
Did you learn nothing from the cold war?
Cameron is such an obvious leftist mole that we on the far side of the Atlantic, even here in semi-pink Canada, laugh ourselves senseless when we watch you declare the socialist jerk mole Cameron a ‘conservative’.
You people are fools and deserve to lose.
Do NOT involve us in your next uproar with the Krauts.
FO and D.
…obvious leftist mole..????
You can have one or the other, but not both, I’m afraid -let me explain. He can be:
1. an obvious leftist, or
2. a leftist mole, but not
3. an obvious mole.
You see, an obvious mole is no longer a mole, mon cher maple syrup sucker!
BTW, agree that your troops conducted themselves with great valour last time out, but pray tell WTF has that got to do with “Dave” Cameron?
This post is aout Polly Toynbee and the Tories. Do keep up, please.
Which is back to front. Heath presented himself as a freemarketeer before he was elected, and at the end of his life gloried in having deceived the British public and other politicians about his intentions for Europe.
Cameron is playing an entirely different, and infinitely subtler, game. He has so far avoided almost any ideological or policy-based positions at all (with the exception of rejecting ID cards, for which I am duly grateful).
I have said before, and I say again: ideology is irrelevant, and an encumbrance, in the era when even the ‘serious’ press devotes half its space to sport and entertainment news, and several pages every day to I’m a Celebrity, Get me Out of Here. Perry’s demand for apology from Tories, and implicit quest for ideological meat, is mis-conceived. We can argue here about what a C/conservative administration should do in office, and what its principles should be. But that is not an option for practicing politicians.
We have no promises about how Cameron will govern. It is all mood music, and much of it triangulation of the sort Mary Contrary identifies: get representatives of the unpopular past to attack you. Entirely deliberate. Not absence of policies, but abstention from policy committment.
Of late, I have detected another strategy at work, and this may be where the ludicrous endorsement of Toynbee as a “serious thinker” (by someone nobody had previously heard of, note, not Cameron himself – deniable if it goes wrong) comes in.
The Government’s tabloid-chasing brutishness and bullying has started to get up the noses of the left-liberal media establishment, who hitherto have held them and voted Labour ((c) P. Toynbee, 2005). To prize that most loyal and influential group of Labour supporters away from its unreasoning support of the party would be a strategic victory beyond measure. All previous Tory administrations in the Media Age have won power despite the implacable (public) hostility of the media class. Should it ever become socially acceptable for an Act-or to be a Conservative, New Labour is finished.
How do you get to people whose politics is formed by self-regarding charity for those less beautiful, fortunate and well-connected? Do what they most crave. Flatter their intellect and seriousness.
Two hypotheses:
A/. DC is wrong about the country’s views and is positioning his party (no longer mine) on the left because he believes that is where the centre lies. Probable effect is the death of the Conservative, creating a gap that could be filled by UKIP or another.
B/. DC is right about the country’s views and that really is the centre. Probable effect is too horrible to contemplate.
Lots of overlap between Cameron & Heath; both got the gig when Conservatives panicked, and both are/were clones of their opposition (Wilson the Grammar school “meritocrat”, Blair the Fettes “pretty” boy). I wish I could believe the similarities end there.
In an ideal world Lady Thatcher would walk up to Cameron and bitch slap is sad pathetic arse…both verbally and physically. I have been known to help my Tory friends whenever I can.
Not a chance now…partly because most of them got booted from the parliamentary list for being too white, middle class, educated, Christian and straight.
I can see the reasoning behind the thought that to show you’ve changed get the Thatcherite wing to disagree with you.
I can see why they would want the left wing media behind them.
There are two possible flaws with this strategy
From the apologist viewpoint
– what point a goverment run by a party called “conservative” but is actuallu socialist? You may be able to claim to be in power, but you are still being governed by your enemies
How long will you remain in office if this is just a sneaky ploy into tricking the socialists into voting for you? Once they see that you are a proper conservative goverment, their support will ebb away and you will never be trusted again. You may get just the one term if you are lucky
Cameron has pursued a policy of positioning the Tory Party as a party of statist intervention indistinguishable from New Labour. It really is that simple.
Cameron has pursued a policy of positioning the Tory Party as a party of statist intervention indistinguishable from New Labour.
Or to put it another way. The Conservative party has ceased to serve any purpose and will shortly cease to exist. It is one thing to occupy the centre ground; it is another to capitulate to your enemy.
In any case, I do not believe there is any real evidence that Windmill Dave has achieved ANY real improvement in Tory election-wining prospects. The entire swing to the Tories since he came to power:
(1) can be put down to TB’s terminal decline
(2) will evaporate overnight when GB moves next door and has his honeymoon… (don’t delude yourselves, that WILL happen)
(3) even if it were a genuine lead he has given us, it is not enough to win at the next general election. 5% at mid-term is, in that context, pathetic.
If Windmill Dave believes in what he puts about as ‘policy’ or ‘position’, he’s in the wrong party. If he does not believe what he says then he is indeed a principle-free PR man who does not have a clue what politics is really about and should resign now before he does yet more harm.
If he does not believe what he says then he is indeed a principle-free PR man who does not have a clue what politics is really about
That’s exactly what he is. I don’t think there is any secret here. He has seen the success of New Labour, and wishes to create New Conservatives. Of course the “success” of New Labour has been to win three elections, really nothing more. And that’s how Cameron will measure success. He wants to win the election, that’s it. What would happen afterwards is irrelevent to him.
“On the task of getting the Conservatives back in power, he is doing an outstanding job.”
Possibly.
But what is the point of being in power if you just do what the other lot were already doing?
“what is the point of being in power if you just do what the other lot were already doing?”
You get the ministerial cars instead of them
Until recently, I would have voted Conservative just to help deprive New Labour of office, but since Cameron became leader I am still waiting for him to say one thing that I really believe.
I have in front of me a screwed up Conservative membership card and a copy of “Built to Last – The Aims and Values of the Conservative Party”. These are not aims that have any resonance with me: I’m not keen on fighting “social injustice” since that often works against the proper interests of “justice”; I regard the “great environmental threats of the age” as unscientific, over-hyped and infinitely less worrying than the global threat posed by militant islam; I do not think that it is within the power of western governments “to end global poverty” – no matter how desirable that might be – and I have no confidence that government initiatives to reduce global poverty will not have the opposite effect. I am not a socialist any more, and, if I were I wouldn’t look to the Conservative party to represent my views.
I too am looking at UKIP.
He has seen the success of New Labour, and wishes to create New Conservatives.
Yes.
But it made sense then (pre 1997) for TB to copy Tory success. It does not make sense now for Windmill Dave to copy Labour failure. That’s the difference he’s failed to notice.
I too am a former Conservative party member who will be voting UKIP next time. It would be great if we unseated the Conservative here in Witney! In case we fail, I’m also planning my exit as soon as younger daughter completes her (private) education.
If Mr Cameron really thinks he can get lots of votes from Labour and the Lib Dems he is mistaken. The whole idea is based upon a double mistake.
The first mistake is to think that lots of former Conservative voters started to vote Labour, thus putting Mr Blair into No10. Actually almost all the people who no longer vote Conservative stay at home.
The second mistake is to think that lots of leftwing people (by this I mean people who like more Welfare State spending and who also like P.C. [B.B.C., Guardian newspaper, university] language) will vote Conservative if he (Mr Cameron) and his associates advocate leftwing policies and use leftwing language. This forgets nature of politics – people who vote for the parties of the left will vote Conservative about the same time as Hell is turned into an ice rink.
At the last few elections most people have believed that the Conservative party would not really cut taxes or take back powers from the E.U. (and without taking back powers from the E.U. and talk of deregulation or resisting further regulation is a pack of lies). In my opinion the voters who think this are correct.
So, it could be argued, that there is some virtue in Mr Cameron openly saying that he is not interested in rolling back the state or getting powers back from the E.U. (or what he calls “banging on about Europe” which, according to him, only “racists” do – that some of these “racists” are black or brown passes him by).
As for what Mr Cameron really believes there are three schools of thought.
Some hold that that Mr Cameron is secretly a free market person and is only trying to pretend that he is a statist scum bag. As I have explained above this tactic would not get him many votes (indeed it would lose him the votes of people who are pro freedom). However, I think that the idea that Mr Cameron is really free market is about as likely as Elvis being alive and well and working at my local chip shop.
Certainly, if one really believes in freedom (i.e. in rolling back the state) one would have to argue the general case in advance – as when one comes into office (one can not say “comes to power” as most laws are made under E.U. orders these days) there are VAST PRESSURES to move in a statist direction. For there even to be the slightest hope of resisting these pressures one must have staked one’s colours to the mast in advance.
The second school of thought is that Mr Cameron is not pretending to be a statist scum bag, he is a statist scum bag. Mr Cameron is certainly a scum bag – his whole life proves this (threats to get people sacked if they told the truth about the the corrupt activities he tried to hush up for his money man Mr Green, habit of calling anyone he wishes to attack a “racist”, and so and so on), but is he a statist scum bag?
Certainly (as GCooper points out) Mr Cameron would have been taught statism (“relative poverty” and so on) at Oxford – but does he really believe in it?
It does not really prove anything to say “if Mr Cameron really believes in fighting inequality (which is what is meant by the nonsense term “relative poverty”) he would give some of his money to me”. But if Mr Cameron had a firm belief in statism he would not give me any of his money – as it is the function of the state to “distribute income and wealth” (this is the doctrine of “social justice” which Mr Cameron has often says he believes in).
So the fact that Mr Cameron was born with money, was given good jobs on the back of his family connections, and married even more money and yet shows no charity does not mean he is not a sincere statist – indeed it may be evidence that he is sincere.
However, there is a third school of thought. That Mr Cameron believes in nothing at all.
This is my own view and is based (for example) on my impression of him when he gives interviews. For example, I listened carefully to the interview he gave to the “Today Programme” this morning.
Mr Cameron came out with all the stuff about “relative poverty” that was reported – i.e. how it is a terrible thing that as rich people get more stuff (holidays overseas, flatscreen televisions and so on) poor people did not get them as well. My impression was the same as always is – he does not give a toss about the people he is claiming to care about. However, then Mr Cameron (in order to put some Mr Clinton style “balance” in the interview – to appeal to antistatism folk) made a big point about how much he supported non state “social enterprises” and how much better they were that the state – and my impression was (again as always) that he did not give a toss about these “social enterprises” and did not know or care whether they were better than the state (which he again pledged to exapand “we would not spend less than Mr Brown is promising to spend, what I am saying is that the state can not do everything even with the additional spending which we would match”) or not.
I am not sure that Mr Cameron is a totally empty shell. For example, although he cites his disabled son whenever he needs extra votes, I do not think he would just hand him over to be gassed if a “their lives are not worth living” movement became popular in Britain (such a eugenics movement became very popular in the United States in the early 20th century, especially in California, and many seemingly respectable people did dreadful things in order to be “progressive” – so I am being quite positive about Mr Cameron here)
I am even prepared to accept that there may have been the emotion of love involved in his marriage (rather than JUST a desire to gain a lot of money and useful contacts).
But I do not think that Mr Cameron has any strong feelings about POLICY.
Of course, this means that pressures of office (which push all politicians and administrators in the direction of statism) would mean that a government led by Mr Cameron would mean more taxes, more spending, more regulations, more power to the E.U. and so on. Because he has no passion to resist such things. And without such passion the drive towards total statism can not even be slowed down – let alone reversed.
A simple question: “Would you want as Prime Minister, a man from whom you would be reluctant to buy a second-hand car?”
Best regards
“Would you want as Prime Minister, a man from whom you would be reluctant to buy a second-hand car?”
Yes. The other sort, that can convince you they’re totally honest until it is too late, are the ones that end up walking off with your money. The ones who are obviously shifty you know to watch closely and double-check everything they propose. Unskilled at deception, they can get away with far less.
I suppose it depends on whether you believe that there are any honest and successful politicians. 🙂
If Mr Cameron really thinks he can get lots of votes from Labour and the Lib Dems he is mistaken. The whole idea is based upon a double mistake.
I doubt he thinks that. Your analysis is based on a double mistake.
1. The other side’s voters staying at home is quite as good as your own voters turning out. Many people vote against, not for. As we have discussed in relation to the Labour annual spring BNP-scare, Labour voters in particular are most roused by the hate and fear of the enemy. If Labour voters fear Cameron less, then their dissatisfaction with Blair or plain idleness will find expression by their staying at home.
2. Most people who vote never change their vote, and all politicans know this. Therefore the key trick of politics is to get some people to turn out who otherwise wouldn’t. Cameron is seeking to avoid putting off those who might vote Tory, and those floating on the centre-fringe are far more numerous than those hard-core voters who will defect.
You are quite right that Tory voters have stayed at home of late, but quite mistaken about the beliefs of those Tory voters. They are the voters who don’t follow politics and don’t have a deep ideological commitment (if you do, generally speaking, you vote). They are the voters who couldn’t really see anything wrong with Tony Blair, weren’t frightened (see 1.) by “New Labour, New Danger”, and have not really grasped, even now, the magnitude of Blair’s silent revolution. Those are the Tory voters to be tempted back into the fold by making voting Tory something that respectable, nice people (in media terms) do.
–
The strong position on ID cards is strategically interesting in this context, because all the research seems to show that most people don’t care very much about it. Those that do, care deeply, and it appears to be enough to make some people people change their vote from Labour to Conservative – that is extraordinarily rare for a single political issue. What’s more, the instinctive authoritarians who are big fans of state ID control are a small proportion (<20%) and precisely the same people who find changing their vote (or anything else) psychologically difficult. Far from being a brave choice, it is a small costless gain now, and a speculation on a potential Poll Tax scale disaster for Labour if it survives to push the scheme forward.
I happen to believe Cameron's personal position is quite libertarian for a mainstream politician, judged by the views he expressed before anyone had heard of him. But that isn't relevant when eveluating his political strategy.
Given all the main political parties are now left-of-centre, maybe it is time for the libertarian right to start advocating proportional representation. In the past I have been absolutely against it, mainly on the basis that the LibDems would be the only beneficiaries. Now without any effective way to get parliamentary representation for my views (UKIP have a bigger brand image problem than the Conservatives), I am starting to warm to the concept.
I think the caravan idea of PT (and if we are talking of bitch-slapping anyone…) is a good one, but not for the reasons that the irrational harridan had in her woolly mind.
If we have the entire caravan focusing on not letting anyone fall behind, what will actually happen? Many laggards have realised with utter shamelessness that they need not lift a finger so the entire caravan will move ever more slowly. We will have to unload camels and abandon goods in the sand just to carry them. The caravan will thus either die trying, or, when it finally arrives thirsty, weak and starving, have little or no goods of worth upon the camels but, instead, a rag-tag of lazy, selfish, unskilled loafers, as all those who stood on their own two feet succumbed to the harshness of the journey long before.
No apologist here. I’m giving up my voluntary support to the Conservatives, and UKIP looks like the best option.
But reading Iain Dale makes me squirm, how he tries to claim that Thatcher believed this too.
Well first Guy Herbert.
Mr Cameron will introduce I.D. cards as soon as the E.U. orders him to do so. He is not prepared to take ANY power back from the Eurpean Union (did you not know that?).
As for encouraging people who might vote Conservative to come out to vote.
So the cunning plan is to convince people who rather doubt that the Conservatives will either cut taxes or get powers back from the E.U. (these are the reasons they stopped comming out to vote for the Conservatives – or did you not know that either?) that the Conservatives will certainly not do these things.
So the plan is “we used to think that the Conservatives might be a waste of space, but now Mr Cameron has openly told us that they are waste of space – at least he has been honest, let us go and vote for him”.
As for reducing the Labour vote. This vote is tribal (partly a matter of class, but more a matter of familes or friends). It is a matter of group (for example, among high income voters, do you read the Guardian or the Independent – if so you will, apart from a few freaks, vote Labour or Lib Dem) not policy.
Let me see “Tory toff, with corrupt background, who married money and is a P.R. man, who even uses his disabled son to try and grub some votes”.
I think if I was a Labour party activist I would find it easy to get out the voters to oppose such a man. Especially if the leader of the Labour party was Mr Brown or Mr Reid (or even Mr Straw) rather than Mr Blair.
Of course with the comming recession (a very important political factor – that should blow Mr “we have got rid of boom and bust” Brown out of the water) and Labour being in office for so long the next general election should be an easy win for the Conservatives (the Lib Dems are, on everything but the war, an echo of, not an alternative to, the Labour party).
However, I still think that Mr Cameron will manage (if he is still leader of the Conservative party) to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
On Pa Annoyed’s point.
I certainly agree that Mr Cameron and his close associates are contemptable swine, but just becase they are openly dishonest and “shifty” this does not mean that they will not greatly increase government taxes, spending and regulations (which would, of course, happen naturally unless the main people in a government had a PASSION to prevent it).
Take President Johnson and President Nixon. Both rather dishonest (President Johnson rather more dishonest than President Nixon) and shifty.
However, government (both in terms of tax and spend, and in terms of regualtions) expanded vastly under both (for the record both military [although not as much as one might expect – given the Vietnam war] and Welfare State spending went up under Johnson, whereas Nixon just increased Welfare State spending – in terms of new regulations and new executive agencies Nixon was far worse than Johnson).
You see “keeping an eye” on a politician in office is useless. What are you going to do if you spot him doing something bad (this will not be difficult to spot as he will be going around saying “we going to spend X more on this” or “we are going to pass law to deal with this problem”) – are you going to lead an armed revolt?
If not, waiting for a politician to get into office is a bit late to start keeping an eye on him.
What one needs to have one’s eye open for is a politician with a passion to reduce the size and scope of government.
“There are no such politicians” – fair enough, then one should not vote. For no other sort of politician stands a chance of even slowing down the growth of the modern state – let alone rolling it back.
However, there are some politicians who clearly have a passon to roll back at least one layer of government (the European Union) and this is a layer that commands all the other layers (so it is well worth getting rid of it) – so voteing for them would seem to make sense.
Even David Davis (work with John Major though he did) said “I WILL get powers back from the European Union” and I (innocent, kindly and trusting person that I am) sort of believed him.
But Mr Cameron – no I will not vote for any party that he is the leader of.