Any questions for Peter Hitchens?

Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday - now author of his own blog - long ago decided that the 'Useless Tories' were finished.  He's no friend of Tony Blair, of course - christening him Princess Tony in the aftermath of the death of Diana.  Unlike his brother Christopher, eurosceptic Peter is socially conservative and an opponent of the war in Iraq.  He is also author of the landmark book, The Abolition of Britain.  Now it's your chance to fire some questions at him...

If you have a question for Peter please use the comments option below or email a question to tim@conservativehome.com.

Comments

[Chris Palmer]

Here's one Peter. You continue to tell your readers that the Conservative party must collapse and fold for a new party to rise, that will be both electable and more relevant than currently the Conservatives. However, you reckon without the influences of your "friends" the media. Had it not occured to you that if the Conservative party were to collapse and another party (whatever that may be) filled its place, the media would automatically portray this new party as the Conservative party in new clothing? Doesn't this put you back to square one? Like many things, perhaps a good ideal but in practice it just wouldn't work.

[Chris Palmer]

And another one for Peter. Do you believe the media needs to be regulated in anyway? Currently politicians are frequently and consistently run into the ground by journalists, sometimes on the basis of lies and deception (I cite the Mirror and Piers Morgan as an example.) Politicians have a very strict code by which they can act and talk - yet journalists have no such similar code to conform to. Is not about time that journalists were themselves regulated or called to account for the mistruths they sometimes peddle, so if for example they knowingly print lies, then the paper must be forced to take out full page ads apologising and setting the record straight?

[Chris Palmer]

Peter in your opinion, can that disease of academia, political correctness, be combated in any other way than just by being "polite and non-bigoted"?

[MagicAldo]

Peter, there seems to be a growing consensus now that multiculturalism has failed. Many of the arguments seem to mirror Enoch Powell's warnings in the 1960s in their essence (if not the exact details). But given where we are, how can we possibly reverse recent history? What policy would you advocate to recapture a "national" culture and identity?

[MagicAldo]

Peter, your "realistic" foreign policy stance has maintained an admirably consistent focus on the national interest sadly lacking in many of the arguments of the new inernationalists. But I've never heard you actually confront the issue of Islamic terrorism head on. Is it a threat to the British national interest? How should the UK respond, if not by way of destabilising regimes that support it? Is there not a pattern of events and ideology across the world that represents a lethal threat to the West? Are there no lessons to learn from 9/11 and the appeasement of the Clinton era?

[Richard]

Peter has put many of the changes in society he decries down to political decisions and the influence of a liberal elite. To what extent does he believe that the changes have occurred due to other factors (greater affluence, greater mobility, technological progress etc)? Does he believe that it is possible to reverse the effects of these changes without reversing the changes themselves? i.e is it possible to have a more cohesive society without reversing economic progress? The Japanese seem to have achieved it but they have a different cultural heritage. Can we?

[1AM]

For years I struggled with inner feelings about being a Conservative. Yes I supported marriage as an institution, lower taxation, less immigration etc. But I found myself appalled at the bile that is spat by most Conservative commentators when they express their views on such subjects as the economy (shifty working classes)/ the family (anyone not straight and married till death is equally deviant and beyond the pale)/ immigration (dirty foreigners).

Many of those who spit such venom are decent enough individuals - when you meet them in person.

So why is it most conservative commentators express their views in a way which makes it hard to then defend the sensible conservative viewpoints they and I share?

[Derek]

Which of our current front bench politicians do you admire and why? Are there any current world leaders that you admire and why?

[Graeme Archer]

Who does Hitchens think his constituency is? His column emits the same dismal, negative view of humanity every edition. 1AM makes a good point, so my question is roughly the same: does it feel great to go to bed every night knowing that your outpourings may have tickled the sensitivities of a shrunken and shrinking demographic, while actively increasing the unhappiness of the people who don't fit your world view? Is that a good job for a moral being?

Supplementary: do he and Heffer swap columns? Does anyone notice?

[Jon Gale]

Peter, I have just looked at your blog. The most recent 8 articles are summarised below:

1. David Cameron is an out-of-touch toff who doesn't understand the middle class.

2. The contraceptive pill is a "frightening medication" with unnatural effects and causes selfishness.

3.Anti-americanism is "racial bigotry".

4. Children need discipline.

5. Party memberships collapsed during the Thatcher-Blair era as parties ignored their traditional support - What are you saying? Thatcher was not conservative enough?

6. Dont vote for the Tories so that they collapse and a new party can appear, like Veritas/Kilroy.

7. Mary Ann Lenaghan died because she smoked cannabis.

8. Intelligent Design is more sensible than evolution.

With the exception of 4. do you really think these kind of views are going to get anyone elected?

[Observer]

Peter, what chance do you think there is of a popular, well-organised counter movement to modern liberalism? And do you think the best way of buidling up such a conservative movement is through electoral politics, or through a reverse Gramscian march through the institutions (i.e. by conservatives seeking to join and then reshape the character of the opinion-forming professions, as liberals have already done)?

[1AM]

I should rephrase my question as it is far too biased:

"Do you accept that one reason conservative values are struggling to gain electoral success is that they are often presented in a negative and unpleasant light by conservative commentators?

Would not a positive portrayal of what the UK could be, rather than a constant attack on what it is be a better way to rally people to the conservative cause?"

[kingbongo]

1) I would like to ask Peter Hitchens whether he thinks that if we follow his advice and refuse to vote for the 'useless tories' would his new party grouping be set up in time before Blair's Enabling Act had lengthened parliaments to 20 years with final nationalisation of private life being achieved via the ID database.

2) Who would he like to see run for the Republican nomination in the US election

[Richard]

Am I allowed a second question? If so:

Peter, you have called for the restoration of our old rail network. Surely the cost of such a measure would be penal? Could we combine significantly lower taxation and a state subsidised railway service that would probably be unprofitable on many branch lines? Then there's also the cost of rebuilding.

[a-tracy]

Peter, I get the impression you'd like to return to an era when women didn't do paid work once married. If this were to happen who would you expect to do the work they do? Don't forget they often work in jobs that men don't want to work in.

[wasp]

Should the elements of the EU constitutional treaty that would have increased democratic accountability be introduced without another international treaty.

[John Hustings]

I'd like to know whether he argues with his brother over the Iraq war.

[Chris Hughes]

Peter,

I am currently a student at University in Wales and am wondering if you would have any advice to get conservative politics (not this Cameron crap) debated on campus. Many students seem to lean left wing through nothing more than having never been exposed to any genuine conservative opinion, and I think there may be an opportunity to get discussion going if this opinion was ever properly expressed. The question is - how? Would you recommend a strategy similar to your strategy for conservatism at the national level, and separate this effort from the Conservative Party structure?

Thanks

[PassingThru]

What made you become a 'conservative' and leave marxism; Have your personal views radically changed or is it rather that your views have not changed, but the time when both left and right mutually supported the family and a high set of moral standards no longer exists?

[Annabel Herriott]

Peter! Can you explain to us just which planet you are currently living on please. as it sure isnt this one.

[comstock]

Having comprehensivly slagged off all three main parties in his MOS column, could he tell us just who he did vote for at the last election?

[Annabel Herriott]

Comstock! He voted fot Veritas! N'est pas??

[comstock]

"Comstock! He voted fot Veritas! N'est pas??"

I thought I vaguely remembered him slagging them off as well.

This is the problem with columnists like Peter isn't it (and I fully accept some left wingers have the same faults). It's very easy to be 'anti' everything.

[Editor]

Questions now closed. Thank you!

[Jack`]

Dear Peter,

In Reply to you article on the issue of drugs being kept illigal and of using hard policies against them i have the following points:

Please read to the end, many thanks.

1) The first point I am going to make is that of freedom of choice. I believe that no other human has the right to control what another human does to himself if it has no effect on other people other than himself. This includes having a few beers at the pub, smoking a joint at home or in the park, taking heroin( pure if it has been legalised), taking mdma at a rave,Taking mescaline for spiritual or euphoric uses, smoking tobacco in an open area. Many drug users are normal people, I know many myself, a small percentage of them will affect other people in the course of there drug taking whether it be stealing or from mental health damage but the majority are not infringing on anyone else. Illegalising drugs is like saying that one cannot drive because there is a risk he will harm himself or harm others. If one

2) Hard policies and illegalisation against illegal drugs in the world have not been working for the last 30 years and have only been having negative effects:
Huge Profits of Illegal Gangs and organisations funding there other activities etc would be removed by legalisation of Drugs. A huge Drop in crime. Money being directed towards other areas also education of the risks of drugs. Huge sums of money made threw tax to be spent on welfare etc.
Applies Strongly to cocaine, even though cocaine in my opinion is very dangerously addictive when not used in moderation crime would drop massivly.

Drugs would not be cut anymore, many risks of drugs only come from the fact that they are illigal, For examply Ectasy, the supposed ingrediant Pure mdma when rarely found in pure form is an incredibly clean and safe drug and when used in moderation eg. once a week comes with very little risk( See guardians risk assessment 19/20)]. Drugs such as magic mushrooms have little risk( Bad trips) other than because of their illegality ingesting the wrong mushrooms and being poisened. Fly alargic mushrooms are still legal, and the irony is, is that they are much stronger and easier to overdose on than illegal mushrooms.

Strength Of drugs would be controlled, for examply cannabis- if it was regulated and controlled and only milder strains were sold legally the illigal market for stronger strains such as white widow and skunk etc would dissapear.

The results of these factors would be a decrease in crime, decrease in death rates( even though use would obviously go up, it would be safer to use drugs, dosages would be marked and sold as medium dosage to prevent OD and impurities removed), a huge increase of money for the goverment to use for the population Uk, the police force would be able to direct itself towards other areas much more effectivly tackling other crime.

Death rates of Tobacco and Alcohol fare exceed illegal drugs, so if illigal drugs were legalized and there death rate dropped accordingly think how much better that would be. It is the goverments job to protect the population then legalisation is the way to go. Criminalisation as we have seen for the last thirty years is not working.

On Cannabis i have the following to say: Quoted from a friend of mine:

Humans and cannabis have been living side by side for over 10,000 years. There has never been a single documented death. Alcohol, on the other hand, kills hundred of thousands each year. Which is more deadly?

As for an increased risk of psychosis by 40%.. Well less than 1% of people suffer from psychosis and what's 40% of 1%? 0.4%! An increased risk of a small amount when the risk is also small equates to practically nothing.

It amuses me no end, the media coverage of cannabis here in Britain... Every single point that has been made against cannabis was used by the US government decades ago..

We are witnessing Reefer Madness all over again.. What will they think of next? Will it be that "marijuana makes darkies think they are equal to whites?" (quoted from the USAs propoganda war on cannabis in the 30s).

Cannabis has not even been illegal for 100 years. It was the backbone to the British Empire (the Navy used cannabis fibres for sails).

So, why is cannabis illegal? It has nothing to do with health. If the current drugs policy was to do with health alcohol would be class A. No, it has more to do with greed as cannabis is a threat to the pharmaceutical industry, alcohol & tobacco, textiles, fuel and many more.

To the fact that you called Heroin, cocaine and cannabis etc poisons in your article:

Alcohol is far more poisonous to the body than all of this, it is a fuel.

Tobacco is even more poisenous that alcohol and all of these: A strong poison can be made by dissolving a 20 packs worth of tobacoo into a beaker of water and evaporating off most of the water.

It is actually impossible to OD off Cannabis and has never happened.

I have not included all the points i have wanted to but i have put across the message.

Thank you for reading peter please reply.

Jack

[Rowland Evans]

Would Peter Hitchens please look into the proposed Government plan to withdraw funding from Equal Learning Qualifications in Universities - including the Open University. I am 61 and in the final year of a BSc and Diploma in Classical Studies with the OU. I then wanted to start a BA and go on hopefully to an MA. This will only be possible if I pay the extra to make up for the lack of funding for any ELQs myself.I was not able to go for a degree in my youth owing to a fairly poor background, but I did attend a Grammar School and it was there that I bettered myself. What is happening to this country? What about the commitment to continual learning and retraining?What about the future of institutions like the OU? Would Peter please take up the cudgels with the Government on behalf of me and my fellow students?
Kind regards

Roly Evans

[A Kreiger]

Mr Hitchens,
Talking about teaching children history, were English kids taught about the versai treaty, the great betrayals U.K twice, declared war on Germany, were they told that for 2 years after the 1st world war, the British Navy put an embargo around a starving Germany completely against conditions of the treaty, the betrayal that caused the U.S. to resign from the league of nations, therefore agreeing with everything I have said.

No wonder Hitler came to power because he spoke the thoughts of most Germans, except Liberals, and the Reds, were English kids taught this, no way, I was there, you wasn’t!!

A Kreiger

[Glynne Jones]

What is this organisation "common purpose"?
I have just discovered it, and the adverse comments about it. If true, It confirms what I have been saying for years. Have you come across it? What are your views?

[Malcolm Richman]

Regarding your article in Jan 4th 2008 Mail on Sunday. Whilst in general terms I always agree with your views on various topics. In this instance I must disagree on your line of thinking. If only diplomacy would work I am sure the world would be delighted however just as diplomacy has failed in curtailing the nuclear programme in Iran there is absolutely no chance of diplomacy succeeding with Hamas on four counts:-
1. You cannot talk and discuss any subject with somebody who does not recognise in any way whatsoever your right to exist.
2. This has been shown in the fact that there is an irrevocable clause in their charter calling for the destruction of State of Israel.
3. Hamas's ideology is backed by Iran who have put unlimited resourses at their disposall.
4. Your argument that this campaign is motivated by political considerations by the incumbant government of Israel. There is no doubt that this to a degree might be true but at the end of the day if the rocket situation was to continue it would not matter who came to power in the coming election. They would have to take action to protect it's citizens.
Is there anyway I could hear your comments.

[Jay Austin]

Hi Peter,

I was wondering if you've heard about a "charity" called Common Purpose.

I've been hearing some really sinister things about this organisation, especially by Brian Gerish.

Some sites are:
(http://www.changingtimes.org.uk/)
(http://www.tpuc.org/node/107)
(http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hBE_0-1v_34) (http://www.eutruth.org.uk/cp.pdf).

I was wondering what your take is on this. I started to learn about this "charity" because I wanted to learn about the origins of political correctness and how it has managed to dominate the country and become powerful enough to control language and silence any open debate.

If there is something in this, and it's more than just a conspiracy theory, then it explains alot about what is happening today (exactly the things you cover in your column) and it is important for people to know who is actually behind some of the things happening to the country.

I'll be interested to learn what you think

best regards

Jay