The conservativehome.com blog

Saatchigate must never be allowed to happen again

 

Article continues

 

---

 

 

---

"The Conservative party's governing board will discuss tomorrow what to do about the £1.5m worth of fees being sought by companies controlled by the Tories' former chairman, Lord Saatchi, for work on the 2005 election campaign which he then roundly criticised.  Anger is widespread in the party about the way Lord Saatchi, the advertising entrepreneur who helped mastermind Margaret Thatcher's triumphs, rubbished the first Tory campaign to see seats gained from Labour since the Thatcher era.  Hostility manifested itself this week in the publication of the Tory accounts for 2004. They included the previously not widely known fact that, when he was Conservative co-chairman, Lord Saatchi's companies, Immediate Sales and its parent firm, M & C Saatchi, billed the party for £339,000 and £207,000 respectively."

This is taken from an article in today's Guardian (the affair had previously surfaced in the Mail on Sunday).  One of the most important things that the Conservative Party can do in opposition is to prove itself competent and ethical.

Even if Lord Saatchi was not personally involved in ordering business for his own companies the closeness of the top political and financial teams at Tory Campaign HQ should have set alarm bells ringing about the ethical issues that were certain to emerge.   So long as Lord Saatchi was party co-chairman, with some responsibility for the election and other campaigns, there should not have been the option of him or his business interests benefiting from the money raised by volunteer activists from around the country.

Systems need to be put in place to avoid this ever happening again. 

Reverting to type

JAMES COLLINS, GUEST AUTHOR:

"As our MPs return to their constituencies, three things come to mind:

1. We could have had a new leader by now.
2. We could have had a Conservative MP for Cheadle.
3. We could have won the general election (or at least denied Labour a third successive victory)

That we have achieved none of these things is testament to some outstandingly awful leadership. As we contemplate the choice of a new leader the issue that faces us is not the social background of the candidates, nor their charisma, nor even their agenda. What counts above all, is their determination not to revisit a strategy that has repeatedly failed.

We should be under no illusions that this is a very real possibility. Indeed, the party seems so hell bent on repeated failure, that it managed to get in another one just before recess i.e. Cheadle.

Nevermind that this came mere weeks after the general election fiasco, which should have been the end of everything shallow, negative, irrelevant and unbelievable in our approach to campaigning, will still did it again. What’s more we achieved this feat with Francis Maude, that high priest of modernisation, as Party Chairman.

Of course, we’ve tried to get real before. William Hague had his ‘kitchen table conservatism’. IDS had helping the vulnerable. Michael Howard had his famous Saatchi gallery leadership acceptance speech (penned by one F. Maude). Each promised a fresh approach. Each was abandoned.

So I’m now past caring whether the leadership contenders went to Eton, grew up on a housing estate or were found under a mulberry bush. What really counts is their ability to supply proof that they will lead the party in a new and indivertible direction. What might this proof consist of? Well, I hope readers of this blog will suggest their own tests, but I will submit the following:

Each candidate should submit their own timetable for action (to coin a phrase), consisting of concretely defined policies, campaign strategies and party reforms that they will have in place by given date, with a letter of resignation as the only acceptable substitute for delivery."

A road to smaller government and social justice

I’ve written a piece for this morning’s Times about reducing the demand for government.

The heart of the argument is contained in these paragraphs:

“Up until now the formulaic Conservative response [to the bloated size of government] has been to identify ever more detailed ways of reducing the supply of government services — Michael Howard’s carefully costed James review being the latest failed attempt to persuade voters that there are painless ways of slimming government bureaucracies.

The breakthrough insight… is to approach the problem from the opposite side of the equation. The problem of fat government can be cracked… by first thinking of ways of reducing the demand for government. Reduce demand and the supply problem takes care of itself. The public will never vote for cuts in state services until they are convinced that those services are no longer needed. Voters may be unhappy at the performance of the welfare state but they will support its continuation until there are fewer needy people or until vulnerable people can call upon superior sources of care.

Social breakdown is a leading cause of higher government spending. A Conservative programme to reverse this breakdown is urgently needed, therefore, to address the crime-ridden estates, weak extended families and substance abuse that have all created chronic forms of dependency.

Social reform is not only the right way to reduce the long-term size of government, it is also the road to social justice.”

I’d be grateful for any reactions to the piece…

Conservative MPs despair at Cheadle campaign

Earlier this week newspapers were predicting that Tory Stephen Day might win Cheadle back from the LibDems. It hasn’t happened. The LibDems’ percentage majority actually rose.

And, on this occasion, a defeat for the Tories is not such a bad thing. A nasty Tory campaign deserved to be repudiated.

Earlier this week The Times foresaw the reasons for the Tory defeat:

”In Stockport’s affluent commuter belt, where residents are likened by some to the characters in Footballers’ Wives, there were signs that the Tories may have been too aggressive. One leaflet superimposed a local newspaper report of a rape over a headline saying “shocking crime record of Mark Hunter”, the Lib Dem candidate and leader of Stockport council. His party threatened legal action. Another ran a headline “Hunter in school cash scandal”, attributed to the Stockport Express, whose sister paper denounced it as a misrepresentation and attacked the Tory campaign in a front page editorial.”

The Stockport Times actually described the Tory campaign as "electioneering of the worst kind."

I know of two Tory MPs who refused to deliver one of the more controversial leaflets. They are writing to Party Chairman Francis Maude to complain about the campaign.

Stephen Day’s campaign was in some ways an echo of Michael Howard’s General Election strategy. Remember the heavy emphasis on immigration? Remember the ‘Blair is a liar’ attacks? It was an unbalanced and aggressive campaign.

The Conservative Party will not defeat the Liberal Democrats by giving more volume to already rejected messages. That doesn’t mean it should abandon its ‘core’ messages on crime, Europe and tax but it must blend them with compassionate messages on poverty-fighting and international justice. I call it the ‘And theory of conservatism’. The people and Tory workers of Cheadle deserve nothing less.

When you go home, tell them of us and say: for your tomorrow, we gave our today

The prayers of commitment listed below were part of a special set of prayers used throughout churches today to remember the WWII generation - rightly called 'the greatest generation' - who sacrificed so much for the freedoms we enjoy today:

Will you honour all who bore the pains and adversities of war?

By the help of God, we will.

Will you offer them your help and support, and protect their dignity and welfare?

By the help of God, we will.

Will you remember the causes for which they endured adversity and for which many fought and died, by promoting peace, justice and harmony among all people?

By the help of God, we will.

Will you always acknowledge how precious are the gifts which God has entrusted to us, and exercise the freedoms and opportunities you have with gratitude and humility?

By the help of God, we will.

May Almighty God, who has given us the will to undertake these things, give us also the strength to perform them: for his name's sake.

Amen.

The Tories and civil liberties

A YouGov poll for this morning’s Telegraph confirms the willingness of the British people to restrict civil liberties in the war on terror.

70% said “yes, it may sometimes be necessary” to restrict the civil liberties of suspected terrorists even though there is not enough usable evidence to charge and convict them.

81% supported taking action against people who have not yet done anything but the intelligence agencies believe may be planning an act of terrorism.

The British people’s willingness to restrict liberties in the war on terror may explain the fact that 68% rate the Government as doing a “very good” or “fairly good” job in dealing with the danger of terrorist acts.

Remembering the dead

I remember visiting the US Embassy in London after 9/11 and writing a message of solidarity to the American people. Tens of thousands did the same. Millions offered prayers. Today the world is mourning for Britain's losses. The Mayor of Paris declared that we are all Londoners. Above is Dick Cheney's brief message within a book of condolences at Britain's Washington Embassy.

Is Britain a weak link in the war on terror?

In an article for the New York Times, security expert Peter Bergen suggests that Britain is a weak link in the war on terror.

Bergen lists a number of British citizens – from Richard Reid, ‘the shoe bomber’ to suicide bombers against Israel – who have been involved in terrorism.

“Why have so many of these terrorists come from Britain?” asks Bergen, and answers:

”Many British Muslims are young and poorly integrated into society and therefore vulnerable to extremism. In fact, Muslims have the youngest age profile of any religious group in Britain; around a third are under the age of 16. The unemployment rate among British Muslims runs almost 10 percentage points above the national average of about 5 percent. In the case of 16- to 24-year-old Muslim men, the unemployment rate is 22 percent. Not surprisingly, polls of British Muslims show a considerable sense of anger. Eight out of 10 believe that the war on terrorism is a war on Islam, while a poll conducted last year, under the auspices of the Guardian newspaper, found a surprising 13 percent who said that further attacks by Al Qaeda or a similar organization on the United States would be justified. One rap video that surfaced in Britain last year called "Dirty Kuffar" had lyrics that included the following verse: "O.B.L. [bin Laden] pulled me like a shining star! Like the way we destroyed them two towers, ha-ha!"

Terrorists have filled the shoes of pranksters

Yesterday morning - 90 minutes before the first bomb struck London - Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair was telling Radio 4 listeners that his force was seen as the ‘envy of the policing world in relation to counter-terrorism’. The terrorists have final responsibility for yesterday’s attacks but Sir Ian’s boast was not just untimely – it was ill-founded.

We all know that London is not as secure as it should be. We can all remember when Tony Blair was struck by purple powder during Prime Minister’s Question Time, then how hunt protestors successfully invaded the Commons chamber and how a rather plump Batman breached security at Buckingham Palace. It was only a matter of time before terrorists stepped into the shoes of pranksters.

Melanie Phillips uses her platform in today’s Daily Mail to highlight the many failures of British security.

7/7

7/7 came a long time after 9/11. During that time Britain and western nations have grown increasingly complacent. That complacency has been encouraged by the many talking heads who suggested that the threat of terror was exaggerated. The BBC even produced a whole series dedicated to what it called the politics of fear. The series suggested that politicians were concocting nightmarish threats with which to scare voters.

Today we woke up to the reality of the terrorist threat. At least 37 people died in the terrorist attacks on London. Sadly, the number of fatalities is certain to rise. That number is the mask to heart-rending stories of children who will never see their fathers again and others who have lost daughters, husbands and brothers. Our prayers are with those who mourn tonight.

But do we appreciate – even now – the seriousness of the terrorist threat?