Matthew D'Ancona answers your questions

The Editor of the Spectator answers the questions you asked him.

Matthew’s Dad: Having read Campbell's diary, it occurs to me again that Cameron's Tories- who's tactical thrust I massively support- still lack the essential fire in their bellies and thirst for power that Campbell so vividly describes in the upper echelons of New Labour from 1994 onwards. "Heir to Blair" comments and giving the War Criminal a standing ovation in the Commons were huge tactical mistakes. Would you agree?

I think Cameron has returned from the summer holidays with – at last – a clear sense of mission, having recognised that it is not enough to be liked. He exudes an urgency which was lacking before the recess. Long may it continue.   

Graeme Archer: Are you writing another novel?

Yes, but much too slowly!

- Why don't you sack Taki? (just joking).

Taki is a superstar and I love him dearly. 

- If Lloyd Evans leaves, may I apply to become the Hackney-based theatre critic?

Well, you can certainly apply, but I hope Lloyd doesn’t leave!

- Serious question: Have we reached the limits of the testing of the neocon hypothesis? How should Conservatives formulate foreign-policy in the light of Iraq? Would withdrawal from Iraq necessarily imply that we have to break with the importance of the struggle against those who would destroy our way of life?

The worst thing the Conservative Party – and indeed the country – could do in the light of the errors in Iraq would be to retreat into a pre-9/11 intellectual fortress. Islamism, the threat of rogue states and the risk of WMD proliferation remain huge issues, irrespective of what went wrong after the fall of Saddam. My own view is that withdrawal from Iraq should barely be on the agenda at present: let us see what the Petraeus report says before we even debate the issue. And let us not forget that, if we leave Iraq to the mercy of the extremists, we shall have to go back before too long. As a hawk, I am happy to admit that terrible mistakes were made over Iraq. But that does not alter the fundamental character of this global threat or – in my view – the moral responsibility of the Conservative Party to provide a robust strategy to deal with it, consistent with its Atlanticist traditions and its historic readiness to confront the world as it is rather than as the Left would like it to be. I would like to see more evidence that Cameron is engaged by this generational challenge: George Osborne and Michael Gove certainly are.

Jailhouselawyer: Don't you think that it is about time that the government stopped pussyfooting around and introduced a Bill to give all convicted prisoners the vote?

No. 

Ewan Wauchope: Have you finally seen the light and dropped Roy Hattersley's column? If you could replace him and Matthew Parris -so much the better. There are lots of good columnists to choose from. Who would you like to have as Columnists who don't already write for the Speccie? I wish Theodore Dalrymple was still writing regularly and I'm still waiting for Peter Oborne's promised book on Blair's lies. I assume this has never materialised because there are far too many lies to fit them all in only one book. What do you think ?

Roy’s column appears in the current issue. Matthew is one of the most coveted columnists in Fleet Street, so we’ll have to agree to differ on that one! I am always trying to bring new voices into the Spectator, as you’ll see in the months ahead. Theodore Dalrymple now writes a regular column called Global Warning and also contributes the cover piece to the current issue.

David Belchamber: Is there any chance of forcing the publication of the two initial intelligence briefs on which the decision to invade Iraq was taken, so that we can assess the value (i.e. spin) added to the second version?

Do you mean the material on which the dossiers were based or Goldsmith’s legal opinions? Either way, the more we know the better. The two heinous errors in the Iraq War were the deplorable failure to plan for reconstruction, and the manipulation of facts in advance of the conflict to construct a propaganda case. Both errors have done immense damage to public confidence in the prosecution of the war on terror, and thus to the British national interest.

Adam: Recently there have been many areas where the Spectator has been critical of Project Cameron. Do you now think the leadership of Cameron has meant that 'true' conservatism such as the belief in low taxation and public spending, smaller government and minimal state involvement in everyday matters as espoused by the likes of Lady Thatcher in the modern era is dead especially as there are now very few ideological differences between the main parties? And therefore it doesn't really matter which party is in government?

I think it matters profoundly which party is in government, and I do not buy for a moment the fashionable view that there is nothing to choose between the Tories and Labour. Anyone who thinks David Davis would run the Home Office in the same way as Jacqui Smith, or that George Osborne would be indistinguishable from Alistair Darling needs their head examining! The Spectator has been a candid friend to Cameron, and will remain so. We have strongly supported his strategy to “decontaminate the brand”, a precondition of all further recovery. We were critical of “hug a hoodie” and the grammar schools fiasco, and I stand by what we did. That said, I think Cameron’s recent remarks on crime have been excellent, and have laid to rest the ghost of “hug a hoodie”. And it is hard to think of a better schools spokesman than Michael Gove. One of Dave’s most impressive characteristics is a capacity to learn from his mistakes.

JH Holloway: I have been reading the Spectator for many years, but I can't weigh it up. It doesn't seem to have steaming, driving thrust that the conservative world needs. I couldn't agree more with the above comment - there's no fire in its belly. The left is omnipotent - it is constantly driving new demands, inventing new problems and insisting only they can fix them. Look the Guardian comments page and especially the web CiF. The left is all over the Today programme where the depressing phrase 'a report out today..' forever hanging in the air. This is vital phase for booting out Brown and the Spectator is not there with week after week of firepower on the failure of the last 10 years and how to fix it. Too many of the metro Tories are either shopping, drinking champagne or at the spa - as your 'style' section reflects. How are you going to remodel the Spectator? How are you going to help drive the intellectual right? You do want Labour out, don't you?

Don’t despair, JH! The Left is far from omnipotent. Look, for instance, at ConservativeHome and the Right’s spectacular intellectual dominance of the blogosphere. As for the Spec itself, Fraser Nelson and James Forsyth, amongst others, are providing sharp right-of-centre commentary week in week out and, in Rod Liddle, we have a star columnist whose belly is a raging inferno!  Our Coffee House blog has become on the main bulletin boards for conservative ideas and opinion, and I like to think our editorials have a real impact in Conservative HQ. Tamzin Lightwater is essential reading for anyone who wants to know what’s going on in the Cameron inner circle. As to our Style section – don’t forget that conservatism is about fun as well as serious political battles. Bagehot said that “the essence of Toryism is enjoyment”. Amen to that.

Bill: I read and enjoyed the Speccie from at least the early 80s when it was a freebie at university. I stopped buying it under Boris Johnson's editorship. I find it far too navel gazingly metropolitan, Notting Hill and Cameroon. Why should I accept your constant offers of free copies and reduced subscriptions when I can find the conservative humour and insight equal to what the Speccie used to provide for free elsewhere on the internet? 

We gaze at no navels at Old Queen Street: our eyes are fixed only on the horizon! I have never lived in Notting Hill, being born-and-bred south London, now living in Hackney, so others will have to defend W11. Cameroon? See above for our selective critique of the Cameron Project. We are loyal to our readers, not a particular politician or clique.  And as to the Internet – I have become quite evangelical in my obsession with new media, but I have yet to find a laptop that you can take into the bath.

anon: how do you feel about you missus working for the other side?

It won’t surprise you to learn that my wife and I didn’t get married because of our political views. She is a Government adviser and I am an Editor, so it is more a question of entirely different professions. And with two young sons, there is plenty at home to keep us busy beyond politics!

Janice Small: The Euro Project. To widen the debate, why don't you conduct a survey of sitting MEPs to ascertain their commitment to an EU referendum on the treaty? Are they with our leader/against? Then conduct a survey/opinion from those on the European Candidates' list to find out their views? Canvass existing MEPs and wannabe MEPs on withdrawal from the EPP/ED and what they think the alternative is and would they support Cameron's withdrawal by 2009?

A very interesting idea, Janice. The failure to offer a referendum is scandalous, not least because Brown has made so much of his alleged new passion for consultation, “listening” and “learning”.

Umbrella man: Please, please, please bring back Mark Steyn.

Mark had left the fold before I arrived. I should be delighted to see him back in the pages of the Spec.

Chris @ Llandudno: As Tory activists prepare to eviscerate their seventh successive Party Leader as punishment for not making them popular enough, is there any self-aware minority within the Party who can look in the mirror and see what the real problem is?

I hope that the party has finally sated its appetite for regicide. Whatever mistakes he has made, Cameron’s achievements are remarkable and – as I have said before – if he resigned tomorrow he would already deserve to be counted one of the most successful postwar Tory leaders. The problem is that there is still an influential rump within the Conservative movement that regards modernization as the problem not the solution. They claim the mantle of Thatcherism, while ignoring one of the Iron Lady’s greatest lessons: that the party must always adapt to the modern world and provide robust right-of-centre solutions to its challenges. She was, in the truest sense of the word, the first modernizer.

Andrew Constantine: Can you explain please why David Cameron does not go flat out for a fairer treatment of England? If DC made the setting up of a proper English Parliament with the same powers as for Scotland, with an English Executive and First Minister, I feel that most of England would vote for him. This policy coming from an Anglo-Scot who is very proud of his Scottish family connections but who sits for an English constituency would be very hard for Labour to attack. After all, Labour brought in the Scottish Parliament so what's good enough for the Scots should be fine for England. I feel that this one policy of an English Parliament would win him the next general election, so why does he not go for it?

I think English votes for English laws is as far as he is willing to go, and that there is as yet no taste for a separate assembly within party ranks. That might change, of course, if – for the sake of argument – the Tory Party wins a majority in England at the next election but loses the election overall, or if a Lib-Lab coalition led by two men from Fife thwarts an English-born Tory leader. Watch this space.

Nick Gulliford: David Cameron has said the 'big issue' that Mrs Thatcher identified was economic breakdown in the UK, and she fixed it. He says today's 'big issue' is family and social breakdown. Indeed, in Breakthrough Britain the Social Justice Policy Group is recommending a 'family and social cohesion index' and incentives for relationship education, including marriage preparation. However, during the passage through Parliament of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill and the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill no suitable amendments were proposed by Conservatives. For example, a Social Capital Index in the Statistics Bill, and provision for educational programmes that would prevent forced marriages and improve the chances of couples making good marriages - along the lines of those in the US government's Healthy Marriage Initiative - could have been proposed. My question is, "Why should we believe the Conservatives mean business, when they don't seem to have the courage of their convictions?" or is it - sadly - that they don't actually have those convictions?

My sense is that party policy is moving fast on forced marriages – and quite right, too.

johnC: Please get rid of Deborah Ross. She lowers the tone.

Sorry, John: I worship Deborah Ross and I lose track of the number of readers who complain of withdrawal symptoms when she is on holiday!

Comments

[Nick Gulliford]

You say "My sense is that party policy is moving fast on forced marriages – and quite right, too." But why did the leadership turn down the opportunity to actually do something useful when the opportunities arose in Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill and the Statistics and Registration Service Bill? Were they asleep, or just "lack[ing] the essential fire in their bellies and thirst for power"?

[David Belchamber]

Thank you very much for your reply.