Cameron
Cameron knows how to balance compassion with Conservatism
Over the past few months I have lost count of the number of people who have asked me – satirically – why I am not standing in the current Tory leadership contest; and after I have bumbled out some reply, they have always said, oh well, who are you backing? “David Cameron,” I have said, quick as a flash, and for the most part this answer has so far drawn a look of anxious blankness, the look you see when people are sure that they ought to have read some classic work, and are in two minds whether to bluff it out or admit ignorance. “Oh yes,” they say, mentally noting that they ought to get to grips with the subject of David Cameron, along with Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time and Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie.
Well, I hope that if there was anybody out there still ignorant of the merits of Cameron, that ignorance was dispelled this week. You may not want to go quite as far as Bruce Anderson, whose essay on Cameron in this week’s Spectator is a kind of tear-sodden nunc dimittis. Like old Simeon in the temple, Brucie has seen our salvation, and though you may not be prepared to agree with him that Cameron is our saviour and a light to lighten the gentiles, and the glory of the Tory party, most dispassionate commentators would surely have to concede that it has been the 38-year-old’s week. Cameron is the one who has made up the most ground.
Cameron is the contender on whom the odds have shortened most dramatically. Before they get any shorter, I urge you all to go out and have a tremendous punt, and as for my colleagues in Parliament who are still toying with other options, I say this. David Davis and Ken Clarke are both great men, in many ways; but be good to yourselves, my friends, and think it possible that now is the moment to hitch yourselves to the Cameron bandwagon for the entirely cynical and self-serving reason that he is not only the best candidate, but that he is going to win.
Cameron has come closest to finding the language we need if we are to make the meaning of Conservatism clear to a new generation. I like this stuff about there being a “we as well as a me” in politics. I like his constant repetition of “we’re all in this together”; indeed, I am vain enough to have a feeling that he nicked it from me. It is a simple idea, but it bears explication. It means that Toryism is not about one section of society grinding the faces of another section of society, with Tory politicians getting off on the sheer ideological purity and savagery of it all.
It means recognising that there will always be winners and losers, and if we want to encourage people to win – as we do – then we must also be prepared to look after the losers. We’re all in this together because if people at the bottom feel shut out and lost, then they are more likely to turn to crime and despair, and make life worse for everyone, including themselves.
I like Cameron’s pitch, because he understands the vital importance of optimism in politics, and stressing that the Tories are the party of energy and opportunity, whereas Gordon Brown’s Labour Party, whichever way you cut it, will always be rooted in the politics of chippiness and envy and spite. In fact, I found nothing to dislike at all in what he had to say, and much to admire, so I will end with only a couple of notes of caution to my fellow “modernisers”. The first is that I am not at all sure what the hell we mean by “modernising”.
If I were a punter I would be heartily sick of hearing the Tories whiffle on about whether they are nice or nasty, gay or straight, does my bum look big in this and all the rest of it. And what is all this stuff about “change”? Unless my ears were deceiving me, someone up there on the platform said that we Tories had to change the way we walked, the way we talked, our sexual composition. Well, I don’t think we should aggravate the woes of the NHS with thousands of Tory thrusters queueing up for speech therapy and gender reassignment. From the point of view of the electors this obsession with changing our appearance is also dull, narcissistic, and completely irrelevant to their problems. No one gives a monkey’s whether we wear ties or not, or whether we have baseball caps or breakdance down Blackpool promenade.
What they do care about – and this is the second point – is how they are governed; and while we Tories must articulate a new compassionate Conservatism, we should never forget that in asking people to vote for us we are essentially asking to take charge of taxation and spending, and that our prime duty is to bring a new and more sensible – and more Conservative – style of economic management. We are likely to face Gordon Brown at a time when his record looks increasingly vulnerable. Inflation is on the rise, retailing is in difficulties, and he has not cut a single one of the 84,000 jobs he promised to lose in the public sector. That means the public sector is continuing to expand, and Brown is taking ever more money from the private sector to fund this expansion, and therefore preventing its use in wealth creation or the generation of new jobs, and all without the reform that would deliver real improvements in those public services.
It would of course be wrong to go into the next election promising a huge purge of public sector jobs, and it would be electorally foolish, since the 800,000 new officials Gordon has created not only have jobs and families; they have votes. But the Tories must never forget that millions of people are looking to them to save them from the depredations of the taxman – and those millions are by no means the richest in society, but the very poorest who pay grotesque proportions of their income in tax.
Of course the Tories must rediscover compassionate Conservatism; but the trick of the next few years will be to show that you can have compassionate policies that are for the benefit of business and enterprise, and that you can gradually bear down on spending and taxation in a way that is good for everyone. That is the connection we must demonstrate. That is the job for Cameron, and Cameron is the man for the job.
130 Comments
Oh .. no.. Mark Gamon…what will befall us?
Rate This:
0 
0
@ – If I remember the film correctly, it’s not clear what happens at the end. Everything goes black and white and blurry, and there’s a lot of screaming in a woodland cottage…
Still scares me, thinking about it.
Mind you, I missed this thing about David Cameron ‘experimenting’ with marijuana. If he confesses, he’d certainly seem a little more interesting. So long as there’s none of this ‘didn’t inhale’ nonsense…
Rate This:
0 
0
“Everything goes black and white and blurry, and there’s a lot of screaming in a woodland cottage”
sounds like little red riding hood!
Rate This:
0 
0
Off topic
Anyone see James Blunts vid for ‘Beautiful’?
I’m so uncomfortable with it I really think it should be banned it’s in such poor taste.
Oh God, I’m turning into Peter Hitchens. I’m going to put my head into a bucket of very cold water immediately then try to find Beyonce on MTV.
Rate This:
0 
0
jaq
Little Red Riding Hood? Didn’t she get eaten by the big bad wolf or something? Not a good prognosis for the Tory party…
I try and avoid James Blunt if I can. Now I’ll HAVE to search out the video. Good luck with the Beyonce…
Rate This:
0 
0
I should have listened to Boris and placed that bet. It’s looking more and more like Cameron may win this. I know which site I’m going to come to for Grand National tips next year.
Re: dope smoking. I wouldn’t judge Cameron if he has smoked it. He’s my generation, a thirtysomething, and let’s be honest, people of my generation who haven’t smoked it at least once are the exceptions.
However, the problem with him admitting to it is that this will become the ONE THING about him that everyone talks about. You can imagine the editorials and cartoons and TV sketches now. He’ll be the dope-smoking Tory leader. And this will put off the older voters, the 50 pluses. That nice Mr Brown would never smoke dope. He’ll just smoke your taxes.
Rate This:
0 
0
Ah, but does Cameron inspire T shirts like our Ken Clarke supporters one?
He drinks, he smokes, he’ll get us lots of votes, Ken Clarke, Ken Clarke! http://www.concepttshirts.co.uk/ken-clarke-t-shirts.php
regards
jonathan
Rate This:
0 
0
Kevin T – HEY! I’m 50 plus. Which generation do you think invented dope smoking?
Tee hee. You think Gordon and Tony never had a toke?
Rate This:
0 
0
My withdrawal from supporting Cameron is based on his handling of this drug issue. It’s not that big a deal and he’s allowing it to become one. If he flounders with the little things, how can we trust him to handle the big things?
I had a friend for lunch (yum) and we were discussing the problems in Israel, as you do (me becomming PH in a dress is going to be a recurring nightmare, I can tell) We agreed that whatever the pro’s and cons of a situation the fact is, one is dealing with a collection of ego’s and personalities. If you can’t handle people then you really shouldn’t be in the job. I think Mac has a point (took me a while Mac)
Sadly didn’t find Beyonce – thought I should do something bizarre, shocking and watch MTV so settled for the sexiest guy in music right now – lead singer of the Foo Fighters. Mm mmmmmmmn (yes, OK, I admit it, I’m decent but not dead) PH thinks MTV should be banned apparently – most men I know quite like looking at Beyonce wearing very little, licking her fingers and shaking her booty but apparently not PH!
Mark Gamon – this particular friend (50+) was reminiscing a while back about how good Glastonbury used to be. From the first and a good while since it was much smaller and safe. Everyone took thier children who could wander ’round unsupervised without fear. Maybe yesterday does have it’s good points. Just can’t imagine PH ever going to Glastonbury. Physically I can’t find fault with him but when it comes to character and temperament I must reserve judgement till I see him on a dancefloor – it’s impossible to dance and remain clenched.
Rate This:
0 
0
Now I can’t wait for the phase beyond the party leadership – so many weeks more to go!
Whoever the leader is…I’m weakening already… let’s welcome him with open arms and make the most.
Rate This:
0 
0
Mark
I had completely forgotten we invented it – did we?
Rate This:
0 
0
Dear Boris,
Amazing day, which began with an invitation from friends to an ‘Alien vs Predator’ video evening. I was forced to Liam Fox out of it ‘I’m feeling a touch right-wing at the moment, perhaps another time.’ It’s just so taxing to have to endure another night of them sliding about the room mechanically intoning ‘nunc dimittis, nunc dimittis’ and spinning around screeching ‘Obey!’ Many of them support John Hurt for Conservative leader, ‘a blotch under Clarke’s centre-left hat’, though there are a few Ian Holm stalwarts among the old guard. Exactly. I am starting to become curious, however, about the level of awareness about the political use of television among members of the Cameron campaign.
You may need to be reminded of the issue. Michael Howard was intended to rescue the Conservatives from the outcome of the last leadership battle and so be able to groom the next leader to replace him. Instead, he used his acceptance speech at Folkestone to say the Blair government was what the country deserved and could Labour do something about dirty hospitals. He then resigned two years early, leaving the Conservative election procedures unchanged. The current election procedures are far too long at over two months. However, their worst flaw is the televised leadership debate at the end, an inheritance from ‘Look into my eyes.’ The American experience is that a televised debate between candidates narrows the margin between them, despite claims of victory by either of the sides. ‘Share your platform with him, and you share your lead.’ When Johnson was leading Goldwater he refused to continue the series of televised debates started by Nixon-Kennedy, as did Nixon in 1968, when he was ahead. This becomes even more of an issue when a party is attempting to find a single outstanding figure from among its own politicians, and may have contributed to the problems the Democrats have had in finding presidential candidates for recent elections.
Boris, I have also been contemplating your party’s need for ‘Cool Conservative’ adverts to attract Blair’s i-pod generation voters. I am of the opinion that the legal struggle can be made to work against them. Instead of text posters that lend themselves to rewording and may be too much like school, a more visual approach should be adopted. I experimented with using your good self as an icon, buried under a heap of identity cards with lookalikes on them for people to guess at (‘Gotta get Wayne Rooney’), or menaced by the guns of Turkish and Belgian armed police (‘Evenin’ all’). My most exciting idea, however, was for a series of candid photographs on red velvet inspired by ‘I had the radio on’. They could have the caption ‘Playmate’, and run against pictures of Newcastle’s Centre For Life homosexual nightclub/genetic laboratory entitled ‘Spoilsport’.
I’m sure that this could help to recover the vital female votes that Cameron and Davis may fail to appeal to.
Best wishes for your future career,
Yrs,
‘Anecdota’
Rate This:
0 
0
Cameron seems to be the only candidate who is willing to actually think about the issues and make a judgement based on the results. The others all seem to be so steeped in dogma that they can’t entertain a thought unless it matches what they consider to be “the principles of conservatism”. That goes for dear old Ken too – it’s just that his dogma’s a bit different from Liam Fox’s.
Cameron is the only one who seems able to lead the Conservative party out of the “nasty selfish party” box that it has landed itself in. Someone needs to make the case that it is not enough for Tony Blair to feel people’s pain, and mean well, and spend more money – it’s the actual results that count. Blair has tangled the public into thinking that new money and new initiatives are the same as results – someone needs to untangle him.
Rate This:
0 
0
David the ‘Cam is On’ has grown up in a Blairite culture, there is no substance to David ‘Cam is On’. He is all spin and bovine excreta. We need a leader of substance, integrity, and courage of conviction. Not a budding Tim Henman.
Rate This:
0 
0
Sam – absolutely, spot on! Cameron is not – as some have, I believe, suggested – ‘another Blair’. He is not Blair, is nothing like Blair, the difference being that he actually does care, I reckon. I cannot discern anything tricksy in his demeanour, I really do believe that he is sincere. Blair, on the other hand… (Is it just me or have the pauses…between…his…words…got…..longer?)
Not wanting to harp on but I feel very strongly that the Tory party would be making a big mistake to reject him. Besides, if he’s good enough for Boris, he’s good enough for me.
Rate This:
0 
0
Sam and Rose: Your optimism about Cameron may be justified. The problem is that we don’t know.
Political power is corrupting. Cameron is well-intentioned now, but then so was Blair. The former might well slide down the same paths of self-justification and self-delusion as the latter, especially as Cameron seems to have fewer real convictions (synthetic phonics and what else?) than Blair initially possessed.
A man like Clarke, who has held power without being unduly corrupted by it, is a much safer choice, both as a leader and as a possible PM.
Rate This:
0 
0
You may be right Simon but I still think, as pointed out in the Mail today, that Boris is the best thing the Conservative party has. He’s so popular I think he frightens them to death. Perhaps they want to elect, what would be to them, the acceptable face of conservatism.
Rate This:
0 
0
A man who will not admit directly to some youithful peccadillo, whilst giving broad hints in an interview with Andrew Marr has no moral right to lead. is it perhaps a repeat of the ” I did not inhale”, or even, ” I did not have sex with that woman”, syndrome of which we heard so much , not too many years ago?
Theresa May , has now decided that she no longer might, and will now support Cameron,much the same as Sir Malcolm Rifkind , now backing Clarke.
Incidentally riff is, in jazz,( how apt ), an ostinato phrase , supporting a solo improvisation. The old wives tale of ” Ne’er cast a clout till May be out” rings a bell too
Rate This:
0 
0
Jaq
>he frightens them to death
I have a feeling you could be right there!
Rate This:
0 
0
Jack Ramsey
Well. Apart from a few Beats. But there weren’t that many of them. And I can’t speak for what they’ve been doing in Asia these past couple of millenia…
Rate This:
0 
0
RETRACTION: (Jack Ramsey, gloat now)
I, the aforementioned, do solemly confess that PH is not the misogynist bigot I thought he appeared to be. I am not telling you how this was revealed to me but I am wearing a big grin and a warm glow.
Rate This:
0 
0
So now Cameron’s officially the favourite. Boris was right and should be offered a place on William Hill’s board of directors forthwith.
Rate This:
0 
0
Simon:
Ken Clarke could, possibly, win an election. I find it hard to square his desire to cut public spending with his love for that behemoth of waste, tax-and-spend socialism and statist authoritarianism based in Brussels, but he does appear to be reasonably popular with the public.
What happens next? A Ken Clarke government would have to introduce stringent spending cuts to rescue the economy from the balls-up that Gordon Brown has made. Ken may be able to swing enough voters on the strength of “it’s the economy, stupid”, but I don’t think he can keep them in the face of the inevitable Labour rhetoric about spending cuts. The Conservative party will still be seen as the party of the rich, screwing the poor who can’t afford private education and healthcare in exchange for tax breaks. After one term, Labour will return to power for another 8 years or so.
To produce a long-term Conservative revival, you have to produce a party which not only genuinely is a party for the whole country, but is also seen to be in favour of the ordinary man in the street. To achieve that, you need someone who is able to make the case that statism and big government is not the best solution for the disadvantaged, but that a flexible, bottom-up approach is both cheaper for the taxpayer and better for the recipient of assistance. Ken Clarke isn’t the man to make that case, but David Cameron could well be.
It might actually be better for the long-term if Labour wins the next election. A Brown government with a small majority would be a complete disaster, and should set the stage for a major shift in the political scene. So maybe I should support David Davis as a placeholder candidate who won’t lurch off into far-right rhetoric, won’t win the next election, but will hold things together for a David Cameron coronation in 2009, and subsequent electoral victory in 2012 etc. etc.
Rate This:
0 
0
Sam: “you need someone who is able to make the case that statism and big government is not the best solution for the disadvantaged . . . Ken Clarke isn’t the man to make that case, but David Cameron could well be.”
Surely all the candidates will make this point, are making this point? Not that the electorate haven’t heard it all before.
Note that Clarke is committed to leading a broadly based shadow cabinet in which Cameron would be able to prove himself.
“maybe I should support David Davis as a placeholder candidate who won’t lurch off into far-right rhetoric, won’t win the next election, but will hold things together for a David Cameron coronation in 2009 . . .”
Davis would be another weak leader (like IDS) who would promote his own men (from among his declared right-wing backers). In my view, he would be intent on cutting down any potential rivals. I believe that is part of the reason that his star is waning now. He is 56, so he would want to be leader for 10 years or so.
Rate This:
0 
0
Jaq
Oh!? errm? well?
Is there something you want to let CH know?
Rate This:
0 
0
Jaq
I’m not sure what to gloat about – guilt and gloat both have the same number of letters and share three, and I’ve had bypass operations for both.
errm? I’m intrigued though!
Anyway, however it comes about, a big grin and a warm glow are jolly good things! Could we sneak it into a mainifesto?
Best wishes all and Friday is impending!
Rate This:
0 
0
Can’t the Conservatives be more imaginative. Why do they always have to gravitate to a toff from a wildly over privaleged background. What on Earth has Cameron in common with the sink housing estates across this country and the meaning of “hard up”? The “Cameron” tag also makes me shudder, not another closet Scot???
Rate This:
0 
0
Jack – let me just say that when it comes to this particular woman, CH just hasn’t got the skills!
Rate This:
0 
0
Christine
Are you saying that only those who are hard up from sink housing estates should be Tory party leader/prime minister? It may be unfashionable to say so but materially all people are better off than were their parents/ancestors 10, 20, 100 years ago. What is different is that there is a culture, supported by the more exciting members of the metropolitan elite, that the state has to do everything for you.
There are education, health, and a pile of other things supported by the state, paid for by the working classes – i.e. those who go out to work for a living, teachers, cleaners, company directors, coffee bar staff, bus drivers………. or stay in to work, mothers (indirectly wrt GB), authors, mediums, interior designers etc.
No.I do not suggest the stocks/concentration camps/forcible appearances on Big Brother for those not in work but it might be handy to point out that genuine prosperity for all (not just financial) can only improve when we are ready to tackle the high level of crime, ranging from benefit fraud, burglary to gang murder of ordinary citizens (nauseating case reported today). Too often the ME suggests that it is the government’s fault for lack of ‘investment’ in this that or the other. How about saying it is the government’s failing to provide the rule of law? Whether a government that provides that comes from a Tory/Labour Old Etonian/bog standard Peckam comprehensive type is so immaterial as to make discussion of angels on the end of pins look grippingly interesting. There is more misery caused by evil a*******s roaming around estates, running drug gangs and so on, plus their advocates in the media who find them ‘vibrant’, than is due to evil or even non-evil capitalists.
Rate This:
0 
0
Some of us have been David Cameron fans since 2001 and his my-life-as-an-MP column for the Guardian: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Archive/0,9328,-1047,00.html
Rate This:
0 
0
And please note The Economist’s endorsement of Cameron. He’s clearly the candidate of choice of responsible adults.
And to indulge in a bit of negative campaigning already…. On a minor point, I appreciate that the Cameroons wouldn’t even imagine wearing the equivalent of DD t-shirts. (‘Dweedledum and Dweedledee for the Dweeb’ would have been more appropriate for that camp anyway.)
As for KC, flogging cigarettes to the third world simply isn’t an appropriate hobby for a potential leader. Does he really think it doesn’t matter?
Rate This:
0 
0
We’re told the camera lies but is it also the case that “D. Cameron never lies”?
After his performance on Question Time I’m even more convinced he isn’t a serious candidate for the highest office in the Tory Party and I don’t believe he will win against David Davis.
Rate This:
0 
0
I may have missed it, but can anyone tell me why the question that David Cameron was facing about drug use suddenly shifted from whether or not he had smoked cannabis to whether or not he had used hard drugs (i.e. cocaine) – or to put it another way, has the leadership contest turned less friendly?
Rate This:
0 
0
Simon: does it matter what the original question was?
All the other candidates have given an answer, the clue is in the word ” drugs”. Quantitive and qualitative criteria, I suggest, do not apply. A straight forward answer to a straightforward question,
” Have you ever experienced , first hand , the effects of taking narcotics?” or alternatively,
“Have you ever taken drugs?”
His continued stubborn refusal to answer the question , however it has been severally put, cannot but cast doubt on his integrity.
If he has not partaken of the forbidden substance, a clear NO would have been sufficient.
If , on the other hand , he HAD tried the odd toke, I am sure that no-one would have thought too much about it , and it would by now have been , if not forgotten, at least forgiven, as being a minor youthful failing. He has now painted himself into a corner from which extrication will be most difficult.
Rate This:
0 
0
Macarnie: This is a difficult area. We hope politicians are honest about themselves, however if they are interrogated about every aspect of their past lives – sexual behaviour, drugs, religious activity, social and family connections etc. – then few normal, honest individuals would want to be politicians. Parliament would be full of liars and bigots.
On the other hand, the public has the right to know, in my view, if any candidate for office has committed a serious crime – one worthy of a jail sentence. Should a politician be questioned about a serious crime that did not lead to a conviction? In certain circumstances, questions should obviously be asked (e.g. Stephen Byers and Railtrack).
All this begs the question of where the Class A drug user fits in. Is taking cocaine or heroin a private matter, or is it of concern to society as a whole in the way that a murder, financial embezzlement, gun running or tax fraud might be? I don’t see an easy answer to this.
Rate This:
0 
0
David Cameron if elected would be a total liability .
Drugs background , Eton etc , ? Scottish
- why even think about electing another Blair .
It should be David Davis – an altogether steadier and safer pair of hands .
Rate This:
0 
0
This is the problem we end up with when laws are passed about purely private behavior – they just don’t work. Note how similar activities are treated. Drink driving is a crime, but drinking is legal – although we’ve all seen the damage done to and by alcoholics. Gambling is legal, but compulsive gamblers damage themselves, their families and society. Smoking tobacco is legal, but causes health problems everyone pays for. Where we draw the line is what (should) separate Conservatives from Labour. Unless and until an action affects others directly, the government should stay out of criminalising it for adults. Some things are our own responsibility – that’s the point of being an adult. If someone wants to spend the major portion of their adult life smoking, drinking, gambling and taking drugs – that’s their choice, idiotic though it may seem to the rest of us. The worst that can happen is they get elected US President.
Rate This:
0 
0
Simon:
It appears to me that politics is about the art of saying little, whilst the one to whom little is promised is left with the belief that the little promised , is, in fact, a lot.
It appears obvious to me,that Mr Normal has neither the ego nor the wish to become an Aunt Sally , at whom all and sundry are entitled to throw their posies or brickbats. If one opts to become a political Aunt Sally, one must expect to receive a clout or two, but , like the fairground Aunt Sally , one must always come out smiling.
There is howen]ver, a difference , quite a large one, between a politician and an Aunt Sally: an Aunt Sally is incapable of telling a lie.
With this attitude , apparently rife in political circles, we begin to expect what are,in effect, lies, as the norm. We are hardly used to being told the unadorned truth. Whether someone , be he / she; politician or no, shies away from a specific area of life , is it not human nature to believe that there is indeed something being hidden? If that something is as innocent as Tom implies; in that it will cause no harm to the general public if someone were to partake of the weed or drink , why is it not on the table?
Roll on tomorrow , let us see the first true result.
Rate This:
0 
0
The last opportunity to vent my spleen on what has taken on the appearance of the annual lemming rush to the clifftop.
The question is, will sufficient lemmings survive to repopulate their traditional stamping grounds?
Cameron reminds me, either of a puppy, trying all its wiles to draw the attention of its owner , or of a particularly eager and persistent door to door salesman; haranguing the hapless prospective cutomer.
He is at the same time bullying and wheedling , but will , when cornered , reiterate the anodyne phrases he picked up on the intensive salesman’s course, he so recently attended: anything to make the sale.
As the hapless prospective customer, are you big enough to make up your own mind, refusing to buy what you did not, and still do not, want?
With Cameron, it seems to me, a Rizla cigarette paper,( aptly enough ), could not be pushed between the strangely recognizable similarities of the professed future policies of the two major parties. ( despite Lib-Dem objections)
This becomes increasingly obvious when even the exaggerated hand gestures of the waning red leader in the one corner , is copied by the prospective leader opposite, who so wishes to be a waxing star in a newly tinted , all blue firmament.
It becomes more obvious that the options the two Parties present to the electorate, offer the unenviable choice between a raging toothache, a migraine, and a virulent attack of the Farmer’s.
Germany has just demoted a Cameron clone, in favour of Angela Merckel, a lady who has an enormous store of real life experience, but who , at least up to now , does not have an unlined idol’s face. Is a mistake inevitable?
Rate This:
0 
0
Dear Boris
I thought your article excellent but why is it necessarily satirical for people to suggest you stand? I know it’s too late this time round but I can think of many people, not just traditional Conservative voters, who would rather you were leader than any of the other contenders.
The way I see it this: I favour Ken Clarke but I am worried that he will be c.70 by the next election – I know Churchill was PM at that age, as were various Victorian ‘First Lords of the Treasury’, but has Ken the same stamina? David Davies seems a decent person but he is AWFULLY dull to listen to and seems ‘chippy’ about his background, which would worry me vis. someone in power. David Cameron is the only real contender by default, but it remains to be seen whether even he is the ideal choice, or whether the real PM-in-waiting is still in the wings.
I’d like to know where the two Davids stand on such topical issues as the VAST amount of public money the current administration wastes each year, and their take on the future of the monarchy, an institution that is sacrosanct to many Conservatives and others, myself included.
Rate This:
0 
0
Well there you have it! The Party in Parliament has shown a remarkable lack of understanding for what the Party supporters in general would have wished to have happen. . Instead of venerable, lively landscape, with properly proportioned landscapes, the future face of the party looks a little like the moon; almost featureless from a distance, and devoid of life close up.
I sincerely hope that the survival of the Party as an effective opposition proves Ken Clarke’s supporters wrong, but I doubt it, very much.
Rate This:
0 
0
John Vaughan, I strongly agree with you that it’s time the candidates set out exactly where they would take the party in terms of specific policies, not vague waffle about being more traditional or more compassionate.
However I do hope one thing we can count on any Conservative candidate to do is cut down on Labour’s overspending. If that isn’t a given then it’s goodbye from me!
Rate This:
0 
0
Look, here’s an election-winning policy: adopt the Estonian policy of not taxing company profits that are reinvested in the company.
There you are, you can have that for free. And once the Tories are in power, then they can dismantle the massive network of bribes – whoops! sorry – benefits that this government is using wealth-creators money to pay for.
Oh, yes, another thing. Let’s leave the economically and socially moribund EU, and start investing heavily in the Developing World; that way we shall benefit ourselves and the poor of the world too. Trade creates not only wealth but peace too, as any fule kno.
As for Cameron, if he mentions the phrase “compassionate Conservatism” again, I’m going to hunt him down and punch him on the nose.
Although, I don’t wish to punch him as much as I wish to punch those who criticise him for going to Eton: only in Britain would people express the idea that being bright and well-educated was an undesirable trait in a leader. Slightly depressing, isn’t it?
DK
Rate This:
0 
0
David Cameron comes over as another Blair .
He says bland , nice , innofensive things – all generalities and nothing specific – just the sort of cotton wool which issies from Blair – whom he is uncomfortably similar to .
If you think that having been to Eton is not a liability you are living on a different planet .
Rate This:
0 
0
Does anyone know what David Cameron’s opinions are on (1) Iraq (2) Europe (3) Nuclear energy?
Cameron has said that climate change is being neglected. Fair enough, but according to the BBC he is suggesting that the issue should be taken out of party politics with a “committee to monitor progress on the environment . . . similar to the one that decides interest rates”.
Bizarre. Why just the environment? The Health Service could also be removed from party politics – and education – and pensions – and transport. In fact everything could be run by special committees . . . leaving the Tory Party to concentrate on leadership contests, I suppose.
Rate This:
0 
0
Climate change is hardly being neglected,, rather the opposite is the case, with the US refusing to curb its monstrous outgushings of both toxic and greenhouse gasses.I would suggest that that is nurturing global warming rather than neglecting it.
As to what he otherwise stands for: I am sure we will wait for some time before we are enlightened in that area. There have been several generalised statements made, but I have heard nothing definitive. I hope he is able to make at least some attempt to lay out his itinerary on the road to the leadership. A start would be, for example:-
1) to lay out a feasible plan to curb the excessive governmental spending, currently plaguing the taxpayer.
2) Address the immigration chaos, at present totally out of the control of this Administration.
3) Take steps to minimise our involvement in the Juggernaut which is PC Europe, whilst still retaining the free trade element.
3) Ensure the judiciary are not in a position to interfere in matters National Security. The judiciary must remain free from governmental influences, but the set up at present does not seem to be in the nation’s best interest.
Parliament makes the laws which the judiciary guard so tenaciously and therefore; if certain extraordinary powers are needed; bring in laws which allow drastic measures to be taken to deal with extraordinary circumstances.
Surely he cannot be serious as to the farming out of such a serious subject as the future of the environment? A hard line must be followed in order to avoid the catastrophe staring us in the face.
Already the number of Quangos , as previously discussed here , is too high. Why, if what has been suggested should go through, should we still need a Government? Everything would be like old Labour , nothing decided without the good old committees, and in this case , an unelected one at that.
Would things be different under a Peter Mandelson lookalike ? Or would a proper Government be allowed to govern in accordance with the manifest upon which it was elected.
Is the Government , acting as the solicitors, refusing to take advice from the Quangos, acting as the barristers? If not , what is the point of awarding the brief out of its own hands in the first place?
We already have a surfeit of unelected and overpaid Government advisors, and it is now time for the Government to act on this expensive advice: the GOVERNMENT must lead, as it has been elected to do.
Rate This:
0 
0
I see that the Katzenjammer twins, DavidI,and David II, got into the act last night, at the television awards. Is there no way of holding a private wake?
Rate This:
0 
0
Macarnie: Thanks for the clever Katsenjammer Kids ref. I’d never heard of them, but found a webpage that explained.
You seem rather disillusioned. Have you thought of joining another political party?
Rate This:
0 
0
Simon: I have thought about giving up my interest in politics altogether.
I have to say that Ann Widdicombes warning to the Party faithful, not to count chickens etc, seems to have fallen on deaf blue rinsed ears. This now seems to be a shoe-in for Cameron, and I fear further years in the wilderness as a result.
If one has anything worthwhile to sell. it is sometimes necessary to attract customer interest by having mannequins in shop windows; however, it is generally the selling expertise of the slightly less glamorous sales assistants, inside the store, which makes the profit and thus keeps the store afloat.
The Beast of Bolsover , yesterday, in a radio interview , said that there seems to be a whiff of the Mandelsons about Cameron: I agree, and I would not want Mandelson, or indeed a Mandelson clone, in any future Government, no matter what the colour might be. I am indeed slightly dejected as to his apparent shallowness: he , like M.appears oleaginous, and oil, as everyone knows, when spilt in a pool of water will iridesce, ( neologism?) as long as light shines on it. The trouble is, like all rainbows, there is no depth to the shimmer, and when the light is removed, all pretence at glitter is gone.
By the way , Katzenjammer is German for that peculiarly cacophonous noise made by felines on heat. It also means , in a slightly twisted logical way, a hangover, ( sometimes referred to , in short, as a ” Kater”) The kids were so called, I should imagine, because of the headaches which they, with their antics, gave their parents
Rate This:
0 
0
Macarnie: “a whiff of the Mandelsons about Cameron”:
Skinner may well be right. Cameron seems to be more about media presentation than issues.
“I have thought about giving up my interest in politics altogether.”
Political life is now at its lowest ebb since the Second World War. The country is run by power-corrupted philistines, with no effective opposition from either the left or the right. I see no vitality, no inventiveness, no progress in the economy, the arts, environmental consciousness, or social reform.
Modernization will fail. People here have really little understanding of how rapidly the rest of the world is changing. The UK is more and more marginalized, unable to influence the USA, unable to contribute to Europe, sending half-equipped soldiers round the world to get into trouble: a poseur on the international scene.
Scotland may be able to break out out of this chronic pattern of failure and like Ireland, Norway etc. be reinvigorated after independence to become a ‘normal’ small northern European country with high standards of public services and education and a modest international presence. That is my hope.
Rate This:
0 
0