international

Czech Republic's Vaclav Klaus is threatened with impeachment if he does not sign Lisbon

The President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, may face impeachment if he does not sign the Lisbon Treaty according to The Economist's Charlemagne.

"Well-informed types in Prague suggest the most effective pressure on him is the threat of being impeached for failing to perform his duties as president. Meanwhile, as first announced last week, a fresh legal challenge to Lisbon has been lodged by a group of senators close to Mr Klaus with the Czech Constitutional Court. The challenge seems doomed, but it could drag things out for a few more months. For some reason, the film Groundhog Day comes to mind."

If, as seems likely, Ireland accepts Lisbon on Friday, Klaus will be the last, best hope of stopping Lisbon being ratified before the Conservatives come (we hope) to power.  We recently reported that David Cameron may have lobbied him to hold back from signing.

Over the next few months he may become the most hated leader in Europe by fellow EU politicians but a hero of all Eurosceptics.

Speaking to LBC earlier today David Cameron pledged that the Tories want to remain in the EU, want a referebdum on Lisbon but that "new circumstances will apply" if Lisbon is ratified (quoted by The Telegraph):

"If this treaty is still alive, if it is still being discussed and debated anywhere in Europe, then we will give you that referendum, we will name the date during the election campaign, we'll hold that referendum straight away and I will lead the campaign for a No.  Now, if those circumstances change, if the Germans ratify, if the Poles ratify, if the Czechs ratify, if the Irish vote Yes to the treaty, then a new set of circumstances [apply], and I will address those at the time... I want us to be in the European Union. We are a trading nation, we should be co-operating with our allies and friends in Europe over things like the environment and crime, of course we should."

Australian Liberal leader defends capitalism's achievements during red carpet trip to London

The Leader of Australia's Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull, has been in London this week. He has met all of the key figures in David Cameron's Conservative Party, including an hour long meeting with David Cameron, George Osborne and William Hague. There is probably no closer relationship between any two conservative parties in the world and it is now the UK Tories - on the edge of power - who are repaying the enormous help that the Australian Liberals gave them when them when John Howard was Prime Minister.

Mr Turnbull, trailing in opinion polls back home, gave a major speech during his visit to the Policy Exchange think tank. It was standing room only on Tuesday night to hear the Liberal leader, wearing R M Williams boots, give a stout defence of free enterprise. He began by noting that Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had vowed to put government at the centre of the economy.

Mr Turnbull listed the achievements of capitalism before warning against the dangers of government being at the centre of economic life. He argued that capitalism had had a transformational effect on world poverty over the last thirty years and government intervention had been at the heart of the last year's banking crisis:

"Throughout the 20th century, the strongest and most successful, most vibrant, most interesting societies were those infused with the principles of political, economic and religious freedom. The best-performing economies were those where citizens were given the maximum incentive, under the rule of law, to make the choices they considered best for themselves and their families. This is not a matter of ideology of faith. It is an unassailable fact of history. The Berlin Wall did not fall by accident. It fell because millions of people living in societies crippled by the failures of excessive government control yearned for the freedoms they saw in the West. The socialisation of the means of production and distribution had manifestly failed them, and they aspired to something better...

There have been few periods in human history where we have witnessed, in the space of a single generation, such enormous economic advances across so much of the world. Many hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, as great and ancient societies such as India and even the world’s largest Communist state, the People’s Republic of China, opened their economies to global trade, accepting that free market has a great deal to offer, the principles of the free market has a great deal to offer. The freest societies have proved themselves prosperous, creative and dynamic, while societies which restrict freedom have been paralysed by social and economic failure – the most extreme contemporary example being North Korea – but history abounds with others. The fruits of greater economic freedom have been spectacular – in the 20 years to 2004 the percentage of the world’s poor living on $1 a day or less halved. That is a quantum leap by any measure, on any conceivable index of human happiness. And it is a record of achievement, a measure of progress, not to be demeaned or dismissed in the scramble to find scapegoats for last year’s collapse of confidence in global financial markets...

What has happened in this past year does not as Kevin Rudd has claimed demonstrate that the ”neo-liberal experiment of the last thirty years has failed”. Now I should note at the outset the absurdity of declaring a failure of capitalism because of a crisis in one industry sector alone and of course there will be libraries built to fill the books written on the global financial crisis and its causes. But we should note that it was a crisis in the banking sector which had it origins in the United States property market, where an asset bubble was fuelled by imprudent, sub-prime lending to people whom banks would not normally have rated as creditworthy.  In other words, loans were being made to people whose best, if not only, prospect of repaying the loan was out of the sale or refinancing of the house, which in turn depended on the value of the house rising materially. Far from being a product of unbridled ”free market extremism,” as Mr Rudd is fond to say, this irresponsible lending could not have occurred had it not been for the fact that the United States Government, in the shape of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was actually underwriting two thirds of the entire mortgage market.."

Download a PDF of Malcolm Turnbull's full address.

During Q&A Mr Turnbull expressed his "admiration" for David Cameron and said that he admired the way he had broadened conservatism's appeal.

He confirmed that he was still a republican but did not see Australia choosing to alter its constitutional status until the present Queen's death.  That will be a "watershed moment", he said.

Harper and Cameron hold first meeting

Stephen Harper may have missed the G20 photograph but his first meeting with Tory leader was captured on camera.

The talks between Mr Cameron and Prime Minister Harper focused on the economy and Afghanistan but also how the Canadian Conservative Party had reached out to ethnic communities.

Canadian Conservative officials also held talks at UK Tory HQ to exchange campaign ideas.

The meeting concluded a busy round of international bilaterals for the Tory leader, all on the margins of the G20.  In addition to the meeting with President Obama David Cameron also met the Presidents of Mexico, Indonesia and South Korea and the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia and the Czech Republic.

What America's Republicans can import from Britain's Tories

By Tim Montgomerie, Editor of ConservativeHome.com and a speechwriter to two former Tory leaders.

A number of US commentators - including Fred Barnes, David Brooks and Mike Gerson - have suggested that the Republicans should study the renaissance of Britain's Tories as they plot their own way back to popularity.  That's good advice because - despite recent setbacks - the Conservatives are likely to be Britain's next government.  Although there's much to learn the study needs to be careful and learn from the mistakes as well as the more evident successes.  Jonathan Freedland wrote an article for the New York Times that - if absorbed - would have sent the GOP in a very unbalanced direction.  Here are eight observations on what the GOP should learn from David Cameron's Conservatives:

(1) Patiently build for the long-term
This is probably the most important lesson - and one made by The Spectator's James Forsyth in another very useful look at this subject.  It may be difficult to hear this but Americans are unlikely to turn against Barack Obama quickly.  The Conservatives wasted our first four years in opposition - believing that voters would soon reject Tony Blair and we consequently failed to begin the work of serious policy renewal. There was too much tactics, too little strategy.

All over the world we see voters re-electing incumbents at the first time of asking.  Think Tony Blair, George W Bush, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, Stephen Harper, John Howard.  Republicans don't need to complete their rethink quickly.  Take time.  Don't rush to conclusions.  Debate thoroughly.  Undertake serious - academically respectable - policy making.  And don't throw your best long-term prospects (eg Bobby Jindal) into the line of fire too quickly, as we did with William Hague.

(2) Aim for greater breadth of appeal...
David Cameron's change agenda can be summarised by four 'C's:

• Candidates: He has relentlessly promoted women candidates and candidates from minority backgrounds (and with some success).
• Conservation: A famous visit to a Norwegian glacier - complete with huskies - was the most memorable moment in David Cameron's conversion of his party to the cause of combating climate change.  Voters were encouraged to vote blue (the Tories' colour) and 'go green'.  Conservatives have been most successful electorally when they've focused on local, practical green measures rather than 'change the world' environmentalism.
• Compassion: In echoes of George W Bush's 2000 campaign David Cameron has presented himself as a gentler conservative, concerned about the many poorer communities failed by Labour's big state. The first visit of his leadership was to a project working with disadvantaged youths and his first announcement was a major commission into the causes of persistent poverty.
• Civil liberties: Once the party of authoritarianism the Conservatives have about-turned and become a vigorous opponent of Labour's plans for a national ID card and for an extended period of detention without charge.  A more respectful view of same-sex relationships has also bought David Cameron greater opportunity to make the case for traditional marriage.

All of these changes have helped the Conservative Party connect with the many wealthier British voters that had deserted it.

(3) ...BUT not a different narrowness
Under Michael Howard - David Cameron's predecessor as Tory leader - the party had become too narrow; talking only of crime, immigration, tax and Britain's relationship with Europe.  David Cameron has rightly added to the Conservative appeal by addressing quality of life issues (the 'CCCC' agenda referred to above).  But - although necessary - it left the Conservative Party almost as unbalanced in the summer of 2007 as it was under Michael Howard in 2005.  More core Tory Party members were unhappy with David Cameron in September 2007 than were happy.  Only when the Tory leadership started simultaneously talking about the familiar and 'the change' messages was David Cameron able to unite the core vote and the new members of his coalition*.

Australian John Howard's rule of thumb was to spend as much time keeping his base happy as wooing new voters.  David Cameron neglected the first half of the task until a year ago.

(4) Neutralise the left-leaning media
In our earliest days of opposition, the Tories just seemed to get angry - attacking the left-liberal media and retreating under the comfort blanket of the Daily Mail and Telegraph (Fox News and Talk Radio would be the nearest US equivalents).

David Cameron realised that an election victory would be very difficult if the BBC and The Guardian (as the journal of the ideas class, it is Britain's most important newspaper) remained hostile.  He has courted both extensively - not just giving them constant exclusives but also addressing 'their issues' - 'the CCCC quartet'.  Labour reacted furiously when a recent Guardian leader entertained the mere possibility that its readers should consider voting Tory.

Stephen Harper may soon be the only conservative head of government in the English-speaking world

That's David Frum's conclusion in his National Post column:

"Harper, however, will soon be standing quite alone. If Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidential election, as seems probable, Harper will be left as the only surviving conservative head of government in the English-speaking world."

Although John Key is still likely to win in New Zealand.

Frum is particularly disparaging about Europe's CentreRight leaders:

"The non-English-speaking world is not much more congenial: In Germany, a very slightly conservative party governs in coalition with Social Democrats. And in France, Nicholas Sarkozy is veering further and further left with every drop in the stock market indexes, calling, in a speech this week in Brussels, for a “new form of capitalism” in which no financial institution “should escape regulation and supervision.”

Frum sees danger and opportunity for Harper in this isolation:

"Canada’s reliably left-tilting media will soon be taunting Harper as an international outlier, a sorry holdout against the glamorous new ideas of President Obama... The members of the Harper government have gained a real opportunity to redefine the centre-right for the 21st century. This is an intellectual project launched by British conservatives -- but it is Canadian conservatives who have the first opportunity to test whether the concepts and themes articulated by David Cameron can survive encounter with the realities of politics and government.  That test offers an unusual eminence for a Canadian political leader. But then, these are unusual times."

David Cameron and Stephen Harper have never met.  That should be corrected soon.

UK Tories deepen relations with centre right parties in Europe

David Cameron met Angela Merkel yesterday (library photograph) in the latest example of the increasing cooperation between UK Tories and continental, centre right parties.

The FT reports that the UK Tory leader and German Chancellor agreed to resist protectionism as a response to international economic turmoil.  The newspaper also suggests that despite differences on the EPP and Lisbon, Mrs Merkel has unfrozen relations with Mr Cameron since it has become increasingly likely that he'll be Britain's next Prime Minister:

"Ms Merkel’s allies say she remains suspicious of Mr Cameron’s intentions in Europe and fear that he could lead Britain into isolation, but she is said to admire his “green conservative” outlook and is intrigued by the way he has revived his party."

Beneath the high profile meetings between the party leaders are a number of formal joint working groups (formally established last September) with Tory MPs sat on policy committees with representatives of the German CDU and French UMP.

Brendan Nelson "impressed" with David Cameron

Australian Liberal leader Brendan Nelson was in London on Thursday and Friday.  His time in the UK included meetings with Australian business representatives, the Bank of England and Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Questioned by this website Mr Nelson said that he had "looked closely" at David Cameron's leadership of the UK Conservative Party and had been "impressed" with what he had seen.  The motorbike-riding Australian paid particular tribute to the bike-riding UK Tory's environmental policies (modified in recent months) and Mr Cameron's description of himself as a "Liberal Conservative".  Mr Nelson and Mr Cameron were unable to meet because the Tory leader was still on his summer holiday.

Since becoming Liberal leader in November 2007 Mr Nelson has launched a massive review of the policies of his predecessor, John Howard.  The most significant shifts have been:

1. Support for the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. Mr Nelson identified John Howard's opposition to Kyoto (targeted in this effective Labor general election ad) as one of three significant factors in his party's defeat by Kevin Rudd.  A prolonged period of drought has been popularly blamed on climate change.  The second factor in the defeat, said Mr Nelson, was simple longevity and the third, John Howard's labour market reforms.
2. Ending of the workplace reforms that many believe were the decisive factor in John Howard's undoing.
3. Support for the Australian withdrawal from Iraq.  Kevin Rudd's promise to quit Iraq was strongly opposed by John Howard but was endorsed by Mr Nelson, who had served as PM Howard's Defence Secretary.  Mr Nelson appointed Tom Switzer, former OpEd editor of The Australian newspaper and a staunch opponent of the Iraq war, as a key adviser.

The Liberals remain well behind Labor in national opinion polls and Mr Nelson has been subject to constant leadership speculation after only narrowing defeating the more modernising candidate, Malcolm Turnbull for the top Liberal job.

The Liberals' best hope of ending Labor's monopoly rule of federal and every state government had been thought to be looming elections in Western Australia.  The ruling Labor administration has, however, called early elections in a bid to take advantage of a forced change in the state's Liberal leadership.  Labor are expected to keep power.

Asked by conservativeinternational.com if the most significant lesson of the British Tories was that recovery took many years, Mr Nelson replied that he was "very determined" to be ready for victory at the next Australian general election and pointed to by-election swings in Victoria as evidence that his party was already advancing.  He said that his review of policy would be completed early so that he would have time to persuade the Australian electorate that the Liberals had changed and were ready to lead again.

What David Cameron could teach America's Republicans

Reflecting on David Cameron's leadership of the UK Conservative Party, Fred Barnes authors a cover piece for The Weekly Standard on what the GOP might learn from it.

Here are the eight main lessons he draws:

1. It takes time... to rebuild voters' trust
2. 'It's not about ideology. It's about you.' Personalities as well as policies needed reforming.
3. 'Broader ground.'  Social justice and green issues have been added to the Tory pitch.
4. Don't ignore elites. The BBC and progressives have been cultivated.
5. Co-opt liberal ends and capture liberal jargon.  The Tories have colonised the left-wing term of social justice with centre right ideas.
6. Social psychology. Nudging etc.
7. You need a leader. After November, if McCain loses, the Republicans will lack an obvious leader.
8. Forget slogans.

Click here to read the full essay.

Are David Cameron's big ideas... big enough?

A question asked by The Economist:

"David Cameron, the Tory leader, has talked reverentially about “social norms” in speeches about the family, the environment and the voluntary sector. He has referred glowingly to two catchily titled books: “Influence” by Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University, and “Nudge” by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago. Just published in Britain, “Nudge” argues that, in areas such as organ donation or pensions provision, governments can legitimately change their citizens’ “default” options, or coax them into making choices they might otherwise avoid. George Osborne, the clever but excitable shadow chancellor, bragged in a recent newspaper article that the Tories were “at the forefront of this new intersect”, extolling this enthusiasm as “yet more proof that the Conservative Party is now the party of ideas in British politics”...

In fact, the authors of “Nudge” acknowledge that their approach is both limited—“I don’t think we’re going to nudge Osama bin Laden,” Mr Thaler says, “but maybe we can make progress on litter”—and old, in practice if not theory. Lots of the techniques they recommend are commonplace in retail and advertising. Deals that begin with free samples, then require customers to opt out to avoid paying, rely on inertia. Adverts that cite the popularity of their brands harness “social norms”. Politicians are already at it too: “Nudge” is as much descriptive as prescriptive, adducing, among other initiatives, the opt-out organ-donation schemes in some countries, the cap-and-trade system of emissions control and a wheeze that improves aim in Dutch urinals.

So it is perhaps not surprising that when the Tories try to set out the practical applications of their new thinking, the list seems short. They want a cooling-off period between a shopper signing up for a loyalty card in a store and his getting to use it. They want household-energy bills to let consumers compare their usage with the average. They want to use the tax system to signal society’s approval of marriage (as it formerly did)."