Matthew Parris needs to pay more attention

Matthew Parris is feeling uninspired:

Where today is the bold advocacy, the impatience to persuade, the urgency of argument? Where are the shouts of “Here's how!”? It is as though the stage were set for some kind of theatrical climax, but peopled only with stage hands and the rattle and murmur of the scene-shift. Where are the leading actors, the big voices, the great thoughts?

Pictures of David Cameron in his kitchen, a family scene sweetly contrived to frame his thoughts on paternity leave, or whatever, and images of the passionless figure cut by Alistair Darling at the dispatch box, his grey stare charged with all the philosophical depth of a shop-window mannequin, stick in my mind. Are these the spirits of the political age?

Mr Parris's has half a point, the half that applies to Labour. But his portrayal of the Conservative platform deserves a robust response. Yes, David Cameron posed for a photo-opportunity. So what? His team are also busy producing in-depth policy proposals on issues of vital importance.

Here's Michael Gove on school reform, Chris Grayling on welfare reform and Nick Herbert on prison reform. And if it's "great thoughts" you want, here's David Willetts' Oakeshott Lecture on, well, life, the universe and everything.

Unfortunately, Mr Parris is far too busy to engage with any of that, what with his busy schedule:

From the window of my flat in London I can watch the Thames as the tides and seasons change. March is a kind of turning point. The river now is full of surprises, forever distracting me from my work. As the skies keep changing, so does the water's apparent colour: blue-grey to brown, to greeny-grey flecked with white, to almost black.

Great thoughts, indeed. But if Matthew can bear to tear himself away from the psychedelic distractions of the River Thames, he might just find that there's more going on in the Conservative Party than the everyday business of photo-opportunities.

Comments

[Christina Speight]

Parris is rightly criticising the Tories for having totally failed to develop any vision of the Britain they seek and relating this to the policies they propose. There's no inspiration and no reason at all to vote Tory except to get rid of the dreadful lot in government now. A wee bit negative, I'd have thought.

As for the Thames quote - That is a cheap comment. He was clearly - as columnists do - writing about something else entirely or using it as a metaphor. In any case an unworthy comment!

[Snail watcher]

Peter: Matthew Parris is right.

The biggest problem is the economy and the Tories aren't so much tortoises but snails.

[Richard Calhoun]

Here's How!!

Matthew Parris is right.

Cameron has done a great job, people are now listening to the Tories.

What we need now are 'Here's How' on issues such as:
1/ Dismantling the Benefits system.
2/ How we are going to take earners below £15000 p.a. out of the tax system

It is vital that Cameron addresses these issues and only then will the electorate turn out in sufficient numbers to give him a working majority at the next election.

[Richard Calhoun]

Here's How!!

Matthew Parris is right.

Cameron has done a great job, people are now listening to the Tories.

What we need now are 'Here's How' on issues such as:
1/ Dismantling the Benefits system.
2/ How we are going to take earners below £15000 p.a. out of the tax system

It is vital that Cameron addresses these issues and only then will the electorate turn out in sufficient numbers to give him a working majority at the next election.

[CCHQ sceptic]

Peter Franklin, I believe, is a party official and works for Peter Ainsworth. If so, it should be disclosed at the top of his article. We must also ask if his views his own or those of CCHQ.

Perhaps this is a classic case of the party officials sitting high in their "ivory tower" at Millbank and being out of touch with real people's perception of Cameron's conservatives.

In the pub at the weekend, there was plenty of contempt for Brown and Red Ken but real doubt about what the Conservatives stand for and how they will make things better.

Don't shoot the messenger, Peter Franklin. Listen to him and the people.

[Christina Speight]

CCHQ sceptic - Well said. I've long disliked the wet-behind-the-ears brigade at CCHQ and this confirms my view.

Mr Editor please can you make it a rule that anyone posting here that takes the party's money declares the fact.

[IRJMilne]

"From the window..."

Personally, I like poetic prose.

[Peter Franklin]

For the information of Christina Speight and CCHQ Sceptic:

I work as a Parliamentary researcher for Greg Clark MP. I used to work for Party (before David Cameron became leader). I am proud to have done so.

All my opinions are my own.

[Jim Carr]

Matthew Parris is correct.
Tory "attacks" on NuLabour resemble the old "savaging by dead sheep".
And it will remain the same whilst Dave "Midwives'n'Windmills" Cameron is in charge.

[Graeme Archer]

Hmmm. I agree with Peter and with Matthew. Though I declare a bias, because I love Diary columns, especially ones where the writer describes how the seasons are changing. Surely a melancholic note about how the seasons are slipping past sums up an archetypal conservative mood?

(Though, the last time I dared write about something that wasn't strictly speaking political, a lovely reader, perhaps from the less gentle end of the spectrum, wrote to tell me that my sloppy thinking made him vomit. So I guess you can't make everyone happy).

Having said that, I agree with Peter, in that I read Matthew Parris' article with a slight sense of disbelief. It has felt like the Conservatives are setting the political agenda for quite the whole last period. (I hesitate to say "season" lest it cause a riff on the schizophrenic springtime we've been living through, with November-type snow storms interspered with interludes of late April sunshine).

I don't know why Peter should tell us his employment details before he states an opinion on Conservative Home: no-one else does. Given the large number of people who refuse to even reveal their names, it would be a bit weird, no?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Parris is right of course, but as far as I can see the great man fails to tell us what Cameron should be inspirationally telling us. Which is probably just as well because I rather think it will be coming from Left of Centre. I am a Conservative by nature, (forced on and impacted on me by living long enough). However, as far as Cameron is concerned I await conversion into his idea of what the Conservative Party should be about. I view Parris and Portillo as being political twins whose main job in life is to pay back-handed dubious and sometimes snidey comments on the Tories.

As I say, I am yet to be convinced about Cameron (he could be just kidding to impress the BBC, but the danger is that he will be taken at his word).

Tim recently gave us 10 reasons to vote Tory - I could easily give 10 reasons why not, but I do not wish to bore anyone and I will give my latest reason why I certainly will not be voting Tory, but vote I will, (certainly not for the mainstream) we have do have a choice.

Liam Fox (I thought he was a eurosceptic) recently advocated letting Turkey join the EU. He cited the contribution made by Turkey to NATO standing up to Cold War Russia - the Turks, understandably, were more frightened of Russia that the West and knew where their over-riding interest lie.
During the Gulf War the Turks were involved and the Americans could attack and use their bases in Turkey, but the wind of change is blowing. The reforms undertaken by Kemal into a more secular Turkey are slowly being unpicked. In the Iraq invasion protests in Turkey by the more fundamental followers of Islam meant that the Americans could not attack from Turkey.
Fox is prepared to gamble that letting millions of Muslims into the EU will not accelerate even more the changing face and culture of England. I would not vote for such a gamble. Moderate Muslims are welcomed, but we know only too well that the leadership is far from moderate. I am not going to vote for replacing Tweedledum with Tweedledumber. My days for voting for the lesser of two evils are over. Dont be fooled by the naive Fox. A GOOGLED search fo Tukey's commitment to NATO in Iraq reveals this:

"1.Turkey is being bitterly criticized in the US for failing to allow us combat troops to use Turkey as a launching pad to open a second front in northern Iraq. There are indeed some who say US and British soldiers are dying in higher numbers because of Turkey. How would you respond to such claims and how would you evaluate Turkey's stand so far. Was it an accidental no in the parliament or did it reflect a coming of age of Turkish democracy".

I regret to say John that what you believe are vitally important issues are not, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, as vitally important as some and it is vitally important that Cameron becomes aware, of what actually is vitally important as opposed to what is not vitally important.

[englandism.com]

'Given the large number of people who refuse to even reveal their names'

It is called painful previous experience and having an email inbox full of a type of boat on the river Cam, nearly.

Matthew is dead on the money and other responses here echo the sound of the mass political disengagement that so many of us have witnessed.

Yesterday, Brown was prattling thus:

"There is a modern case for the Union, and it must be heard: it is not about partnership at the expense of pride, or about pride that can be satisfied only by sacrificing partnership."

Meanwhile:

“Gordon Brown is back peddling. One minute he getting us to swear oaths of allegiance to Great Britain, and the next he's saying we can fly the Saltire.”
Christine Grahame MSP.

As part of his core policy of placating England and readying Middle England for another dollop of uniquely Scottish devolved powers we are once again exalted to stick a Union flag on every available town hall, hospital and school.

Who is the party of Middle England? Which party has long since lost either resonance or relevance outside of England?

We may as well do a Matthew and watch the Thames slowly fade to grey.

[Christina Speight]

Peter Franklin Thanks for your biog! I certainly wouldn't ask for a general biog of all bloggers (Graeme) but those who are employed by the party hierarchy and are paid workers should, I feel disclose this. Even an anonymous worker could find a formula, I feel sure.

But back to the subject - Camereon should deliver a trumpet call. "Britain is broken - help us fix it" could be the theme with the details of all of the policies presented in the context of fixing a broken society. But first you have to agree that it IS broken as most people think.

[CCHQ sceptic]

Mr Franklin works for Greg Clark but who pays his salary? The Conservative Party or Mr Clark from his Parliamentary allowances? If it is the Conservative Party or Parliament via Short Money, we must regard him a party official and treat his comments with scepticism.

Graeme Archer and Malcolm Dunn, who also complains regularly about anonymous posts, are fortunate to be able to comment freely under their own names. That is not the case with everyone. Their sanctimonious whinging is becoming a bore. Several posters have told me that they do not post under their own names for good reasons.

The main one is that search engines can pick up their posts, especially if the name is distinctive. If a poster is employed by a political organisation (e.g. government organisation, political party, pressure group or lobbying firm), their may be restrictions on what or how they can comment on publicly. Similarly, posters have jobs where their political opinions could affect their reputations, e.g. economist in an investment bank.

[Tim Montgomerie]

Perhaps you should just have apologised to Peter for wrongly accusing him, CCHQ sceptic?

[ukipwebmaster]

The picture Parris paints is one of stage managed political decline and it's spot on.

[alexis]

I think that Christina Speight is more in touch with the grass root Conservatives than the whole of CCO put together.
Christina our party has not got a snowballs chance in hell of winning ther next GE and will not have until they return to Conservative Policies.
Not this heir to Blair stuff.
Like me Christina you are spitting in the wind.
CCO pay more attention to polls which are all over the place at the moment than facing reality.
They are just not cutting it full stop.

[Richard Calhoun]

There does seem to be a large number of people commenting who do not believe Cameron is the right leader for us to have.

I agree with Matthew Parris' sentiments and believe as I said earlier that Cameron needs to spell out how he would go about reducing tax and cut public spending.

Not claim he is going to do it when he reaches office but what actions he needs to take to put themselves in a position to do so over the 5 years they will be in power.

[CCHQ sceptic]

Mr Editor, if you read my posts carefully, you will see that I just sought clarification. I did not accuse Peter Franklin of anything and have nothing to apologise for. Mr Franklin is paid by a leading frontbencher and/or the Conservative Party and he cannot be seen as truly independent of the CCHQ machine.

[David Sergeant]

"I think that Christina Speight is more in touch with the grass root Conservatives than the whole of CCO put together"

Since so many people seem to support Ms. Speight I have picked out the above comment. Frankly you all seem living on a different planet to the rest of the country. It crosses my mind that you are talking such impractical nonsence that a high proportion are Labour moles having a stir. I have no doubt that Mathew Parris was not thinking of any of the Speightish posts when he wrote his article.

Having said that there is, and had been for a long time, a hole in the centre of Conservative party thought. Individual shadow ministers produce worthy policies but little attempt is made to put the overall policy principles and I am sure this is what Parris was complaining about. They are there, mentioned from time to time, but are not noticed by people who can't be bothered. Tory MPs generally since about 1993 have only been interested about themselves so, unlike Labour, they rarely bother to push the party lines so the overall story is rarely heard.

[CCHQ sceptic]

"Here's Michael Gove on school reform, Chris Grayling on welfare reform and Nick Herbert on prison reform."

I agree that those policies are good but how many voters could tell you what they are. The policies that CCHQ has focused on communicating are the A list, no tax cuts, and the blue green agenda. CCHQ's message is "please vote for us because we are green liberals led by the real heir to Blair".

[innocent abroad]

We, well not we, but others like us, have all been here before, when our party lost sight of the answers to the nation's problems, and instead took to pleasing the media and spinning our supporters.

Peter, Matthew is not some right-wing idealogue, foaming at the mouth (as he might put it) for some really big, no, gigantic tax cut. He just doesn't like the way that the party has whimped out of talking of anything serious.

For all the lies that the party leadership tell the party members about their agenda, the truth is that this is not 1977 but 1968. Matthew knows what this means. Do you?

[Oberon Houston]

Labour won a landslide in 1997 with no policy whatsoever. One Labour MP commented just before the election that "78% of voters think our policy on the NHS is better that the Tories, and we don't have one." Well, that might have been quite prudent.

If elected we will be an untested and inexperienced government and need to reassure voters that we are willing to use moderation in the first term. If Brown didn't get exited and start meddling with policy we would be better off today. We can undo all that and improve on it, but try to rush it and we will never get the opportunity...