A new opinion poll for BPIX finds the LibDems on their lowest opinion poll rating since 2002. It shows the Tories maintaining the opinion poll boost that David Cameron's election provided.
PoliticalBetting.com has documented the reasons why Sir Menzies Campbell has now emerged as the clear favourite to succeed Charles Kennedy as LibDem leader. Mr Campbell, already interim leader, following Mr Kennedy's immediate resignation of yesterday, has the support of 23 MPs according to a BBC Radio survey. Lord Steel has also declared for the former Olympic runner. Ming's support contrasts with three MPs backing Simon Hughes and just two MPs backing Mark Oaten.
David Laws, a leading Orange Book liberal, has already declared for 'Ming' in a sign that the Orange Bookers are not a united force. Mr Laws may believe that Mr Campbell has a better chance of uniting the party than someone like Mr Oaten, who is seen as a champion of the LibDem kind of economic liberalism associated with the controversial Orange Book. Mr Laws and Nick Clegg (only elected last May and who has already ruled himself out of the race) may see Ming Campbell as an interim leader who can be replaced by a more 'modern' figure after the next General Election.
BBCi reports that:
"Mr Hughes, party president, said he would not announce whether he was standing until he had overseen the process for choosing the way a new leader will be decided."
This seems an extraordinary state of affairs. If Mr Hughes has any interest in running for the LibDem leadership he should immediately resign from this position or there could be a suspicion of him choosing a timetable or process likely to favour his own candidacy.
So Cable, Davey, Clegg, Laws, Taylor and Teather are backing Campbell.
Surely it must become a coronation. Oaten's natural support seems to have gone to Campbell and if Hughes won it could turn into an Orangebook/Leftist bloodbath.
Posted by: Coffee Monster | January 08, 2006 at 14:39
Ming is clearly seen as the Lib Dem's Michael Howard - an experienced placeholder to see them through the next election. Obviously the Orange Bookers hope that will give them time to get into position to take over thereafter. And that's precisely why Hughes will almost certainly run.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 08, 2006 at 14:40
"Surely it must become a coronation."
It won't. John Hemming has basically guaranteed that he'll stand if nobody else does, and if there is going to be a contest, then Hughes will go for it. Frankly when it's thrown to the members, it's hard to see what might happen.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 08, 2006 at 14:43
The dynamics of this contest are changing by the hour.
It's make or break for Hughes, he has to fulfil his duties as President and then move quickly to gather some momentum.
Posted by: Frank Young | January 08, 2006 at 14:45
Expect a Hughes declaration after he's 'discharged his duties as president' (the phrase he keeps using) at the Federal Executive meeting tomorrow.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 08, 2006 at 14:48
"John Hemming has basically guaranteed that he'll stand if nobody else does"
Hemming doesn't have a hope in hell of getting 7 MPs to back him.
Posted by: Coffee Monster | January 08, 2006 at 14:48
"Hemming doesn't have a hope in hell of getting 7 MPs to back him."
But we can do our bit to encourage him by visiting his unofficial campaign blog!
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 08, 2006 at 14:50
I've no doubt he'll announce tomorrow. He does,though, need moderate MPs at his declaration just as Ken Clarke always sought the backing of Euro sceptics. He can't assemble a team that looks like a rag bag of left wingers.
Posted by: Frank Young | January 08, 2006 at 14:51
"Hemming doesn't have a hope in hell of getting 7 MPs to back him."
He does if nobody else puts their name forward. The Lib Dems want a contest.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 08, 2006 at 14:51
Given the alleged rage of Kennedy loyalists at the Machiavellian machinations of Campbell, they could coalesce behind a non-Campbell candidate, even if it is Hughes. What price a Hughes-Oaten (in the manner of Clarke-Redwood) 'dream' ticket anybody?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 08, 2006 at 14:54
"He does if nobody else puts their name forward. The Lib Dems want a contest."
You may be right, according to his blog he now has 2 MPs backing him. Frankly I'm stunned.
Posted by: Coffee Monster | January 08, 2006 at 14:55
Hughes well knows his strength is with the membership, he can afford to fall behind Campbell in numbers of MPs backing him. The danger is that the number of MPs backing Campbell becomes so overwhelming that when it comes to the membership, Campbell can argue he is the clear choice of the parliamentary party. This also stores problems for Hughes in the future if he wins on that basis.
I would suspect he needs to have around 40% of MPs backing him compared to 60% for Campbell for it not to become a central issue.
Posted by: Frank Young | January 08, 2006 at 15:04
From a Tory point of view, David Laws was surely the most worrying putative leader. Happily, though, he and all the other modernisers have thrown their weight behind Menzies Campbell. Like the cat in the adage, they have let "I dare not" wait upon "I would". You can see Ming's appeal from their point of view: young cardinals vote for old popes. And no one denies that he's a decent and courteous man. But he's hardly inspirational. I don't know about the rest of you but, five minutes after hearing him on the radio or television, I can never remember what it was he was saying.
Posted by: Daniel Hannan | January 08, 2006 at 15:39
I must admit that I quite like Ming the Merciless. He often has good points to make and is a competant politician (far more competatant than Charles Kennedy, anyway).
The problem he will have is with positioning. With Cameron as a fresh young leader and with Ming being, shall we say, of a certain age, the Lib Dems' student support may decrease in favour of the Tories. This support has often proven crucial in several Lib Dem seats and, without it, I would suggest that they'd make pretty heavy losses.
Campbell is an excellent politician but it's a shame he's in third party politics. If he does become leader, he'll find it difficult to position himself in a place where he can get himself heard and where he'll be able to appeal to swing voters. Kennedy had the appeal because he was laid back and didn't seem like a "traditional" politician in the Tory or Labour mould. I'm not sure whether Ming will appeal to the same mindset of people.
As for other candidates, Oaten is the biggest threat but the "Democrats" wing of the Party (by far the dominant side) is unlikely to support him and he probably won't get far. Hughes would be the least threat. It would be paradise on Earth if, for some reason, the Lib Dems elected him! Welcome to electoral oblivion!
Posted by: Elena | January 08, 2006 at 15:51
"Hughes would be the least threat. It would be paradise on Earth if, for some reason, the Lib Dems elected him! Welcome to electoral oblivion!"
Ha. I actually think he'd be by far their most successful leader.
You must remember that when people vote Lib Dem that they know they are voting for a party that won't form a government. Thus, in voting they are often doing so to salve their moral consciences.
I think it's silly to suggest that a more "realistic" leader would help the chances of the Lib Dems, because it's not taking into account why people vote for them.
Posted by: John Hustings | January 08, 2006 at 16:04
If Hughes was to be elected leader, I would hope he would lurch to the left, forcing Labour to defend their left wing base, which would be the best result for the Tories.
Posted by: Rob | January 08, 2006 at 16:08
He won't lurch to the left. The reality of his situation is that he would have to keep a parliamentary party together, where most of the talent is on the right. He knows this is the case and his best interests lie in building alliances with the right.
Some people in and out of the party will try and portray him as left wing, but largely for their purposes.
The biggest difference is likely to be retention of the more iconic Lib Dem policies on tuition fees, anti-war and elements of higher taxation.
As I’ve said before the team he assembles both now and later (including whomever is elected his Deputy) is crucial.
Buts here's a wild card prediction. Simon Hughes is the party president, elected by the members. The membership at large is angry at the way Charles Kennedy has been ousted the parliamentary party without their consultation. If Hughes wins he opens up a contest for party president. Kennedy never thought he should have been disposed, considers he has large support in the constituencies and wants to remain at the forefront of his party and politics. What odds Kennedy becoming party president??
Posted by: Frank Young | January 08, 2006 at 16:31
"What odds Kennedy becoming party president?"
He said he's returning to the backbenches.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 08, 2006 at 16:32
Does anyone know of any defections in the pipeline from LibDem/Labour to Conservative? I thought Frank Field was going to join us?
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | January 08, 2006 at 16:34
As I understand it party President is a wholly party role and doesn't necessitate a front bench commons position.
Posted by: Frank Young | January 08, 2006 at 16:38
I'd have thought they'd do it nearer to an election if it looked likely we would win and ministerial places were on offer. However....
Posted by: Frank Young | January 08, 2006 at 16:40
Have to agree with Dan here. I can't think of anything distinctive about Ming apart from he's a sharp dresser and used to be a sprinter. I know nothing about his political beliefs at all. Looking like a desperate move from a desperate party.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | January 08, 2006 at 16:55
I am sure Sir Ming is a lovely man, decent fellow, etc etc. But I think I have the libdem-elder-statesman-antibody gene, as I can't listen to him for 5 minutes without wanting to see him slapped with a wet fish, scream out loud etc etc. His only useful function in my life is to help me out of bed in the morning, since he's on Today more often than Jim Naughtie, and I so dislike his preening air of self-import to the extent I prefer to face my pre-7am self in the bathroom mirror.
Are the liberals MAD? Are they really going to wait 4 years before working out whether they are real liberals or social democrats? Or is Sir Ming more than a caretaker; does he have a secret plan of decapitation, to take out all the Tory leaders who ... oh hang on, they've tried that. Does his secret plan involve tacking to the left on issues like increasing taxes or, erm, student, um, things, oh hang on they've tried that.
Of course it's none of these! It's the WAR! The war in which the liberals covered themselves in such glory, forming their nazi-soviet pact with the antiwar movement (including the least-liberal, to be polite, elements in society) to take seats from the left! Yes! That's the great orange future, for the party of Gladstone.
Come on in Vince, Nick, Dave - that dustbin party's time is up. Come and join the grown-ups and talk about real politics.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | January 08, 2006 at 17:02
I think this is the ideal opportunity for the Conservative party to help the Liberal Democrats on the way with their split. For too long have they misled the nation and those that vote for them. I wonder how many of the Islamic voters that vote Lib Dem also realise that the Lib Dems also support gay rights? If they don't know then it's about time they were told. In seats where the Conservatives are the third party, this might be quite an advantageous strategy - though as people continually remind me, Lib Dem voters first can't believe that what you've told them is true, then they think you're the one that is lying, and then they have an even lower opinion of the Conservative party.
Ming The Merciless and his Liberal dimwits have managed to decapitate their own party!
Posted by: Chris Palmer | January 08, 2006 at 17:43
This obviously proves I need to get a life, but I've just been browsing the (very poor) weblog by someone called Sandra Gidley, the LibDem MP (just) for Romsey. All the press I've read in the last few days suggests that she was one of the prime movers against Kennedy in her party. Here's a quote from her blog written during last Autumn's libdem conference in Blackpool:
"The bizarre thing was the debate about the party leadership which almost seemed to have been generated by those close to the leader himself. It's a non story because there is no great discontent among the party so we can only assume that as the press had to talk about something then they just mirrored the debate that is going on in the other two parties.
Hardly original."
Umm, will the real Sandra Gidley please stand up? Was she the Blackpool ingenue who didn't understand what the fuss about LibDem leadership was? Or was she in fact one of the first LibDem cabinet to move against Mr Kennedy?
[I copied the comment from the "Reflections on Blackpool" post by Gidley on Thursday 29 September 2005, here:
http://romseyredhead.blogspot.com//
]
Posted by: Graeme Archer | January 08, 2006 at 17:53
Some of the papers are saying that the LDs are a "Nasty Party".
What do you think?.
Reference the polls I am pleased that DC is continuning to do well since his election.
I am more convinced than ever that we members have chosen the right man.
Posted by: Blue Book Conservatives ( BBC ) | January 08, 2006 at 17:59
The Liberal Democrats are a tenuous unholy alliance between two opposing forces desperate for political power, anyway.
It would be much better if they could split into two parties and give the electorate more choice.
Re: the comment made by someone who said that people don't know what they're voting for when they vote Lib Dem. I completely agree with you. A friend told me she'd voted for them on May 5th and when I told her that they were pro-European integration she was shocked to the core.
Posted by: Elena | January 08, 2006 at 18:12
It's long been the case that the best way to stop people voting Lib Dem is to tell them about Lib Dem policies!
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 08, 2006 at 18:21
Time for someone to prove themselves a political geek!
What are the exact leadership rules for the Lib Dems? I far as I’m aware any potential candidate needs 7 MP's to nominate them to go through to an vote of the membership. However on channel 4 news last night the correspondent claimed they also needed to be nominated by 200 members in 20 different constituencies. I can't find any references to this on the net. I also seem to remember a motion to change these rules being passed at their last conference. Either way if anyone has a definitive answer?
Posted by: Frank Young | January 08, 2006 at 18:48
Well I have just put £200 on Campbell to win. It should be a chance to win back some of the money I lost on Davis.
That was the first political bet I lost since backing Jeremy Thorpe to win back his seat after the Norman Scott debacle.
Posted by: Mike Smith | January 08, 2006 at 18:52
"It's long been the case that the best way to stop people voting Lib Dem is to tell them about Lib Dem policies!" - James Hellyer
As I said above James, that's not always the case. Someone called Martin Smith who occasionally frequents this blog has a very good set of ideas/opinions on this topic/issue.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | January 08, 2006 at 19:07
Well, my experience of campaigning in a Caon/Lib marginal suggests otherwise.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 08, 2006 at 19:23
Hence the phrase "that's not always the case" James.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | January 08, 2006 at 19:26
There being other ways doesn't stop that being the best way :)
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 08, 2006 at 19:33
Graeme Archer: "Are the liberals MAD? Are they really going to wait 4 years before working out whether they are real liberals or social democrats?"
Graeme, they'd be mad to do anything else but gloss over their intellectual incoherence. And who better to carry on Charles Kennedy's superlative efforts in this area than Ming the Meaningless? The best thing that could happen now if for the Orange Book and Beveridge Group factions to start discovering just how little they have in common with one another. A Ming coronation threatens to return the Lib Dems to the Shining Path of Least Resistance, down which a lot of votes are to be found.
Posted by: Peter Franklin | January 08, 2006 at 19:54
James Hellyer is right about campaigning against the Liberal Democrats, however you can only go negative like that in areas where you have built up trust with the electorate. If you go in negative against a Liberal Democrat incumbent without the hard work and positive campaigning first then you simply won't be believed.
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | January 08, 2006 at 20:13
Even before the Liberal-SDP merger, the Liberals had long since abandoned "classical" liberalism. In fact they they jettisoned it around the Edwardian period. The SDP were simply the Old Labour Right and therefore only marginally to the left of the Liberals. This explains why the majority of Lib Dem grass roots only differ in how left-of-centre they are. The Orange Book brigade, if they really believe in classical liberalism, should consider joining the Libertarian Alliance, although I can't see them accepting the latter's beliefs on gun ownership or anti-discrimination legislation.
I'm not sure whether I want Hughes or Ming to win. The advantage of the latter winning is that if he is seem as a representative of the Orange Bookers, it will cause a significant rift with the grass roots.
Posted by: Richard | January 08, 2006 at 20:35
As if it mattered - who cares apart from yogurt knitters
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh | January 08, 2006 at 22:38
I care. Simon Hughes would make politics interesting. Ming wouldn't.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 08, 2006 at 22:49
Just heard Lembit Opik on the Westminster Hour. He wants Oaten to be the next LibDem leader.
It looks like it might be Ming versus Hughes versus Oaten.
Laws seems set to be Ming's main champion with a number of broadcast appearances today.
Paul Holmes, Chairman of the LD parliamentary party, will be a cheerleader for Simon Hughes... if he runs...
Posted by: Editor | January 08, 2006 at 23:09
You all seem to be misunderestimating the formidable political operator that is John Hemming...
IMHO, this man would be the ideal leader for the Liberal Demoprats, and therefore we should all lend our support to his campaign pronto.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 08, 2006 at 23:17
Ive never heard of John Hemming before. Why is he being spoken of? Is he a serious choice or is this a joke thing?
Posted by: James Maskell | January 08, 2006 at 23:23
"Is he a serious choice?"
For John Hemming, he is. And according to his blog, he has the support of at least one other (anonymous, obviously) MP.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 08, 2006 at 23:28
Just checked out John Hemming and he certainly would be a fresh face for the LDs, as he was first elected in 2005. A man of great confidence, and obviously has not made many mistakes so far. I say give him a chance.
Posted by: Derek | January 09, 2006 at 00:36
I've never heard of John Hemming either and suspect he's an urban myth. In case he's real, I've posted a couple of supporting messages on a support Hemming blog. ( check the link through DV-A on this thread).
Posted by: john Skinner | January 09, 2006 at 00:49
"A man of great confidence, and obviously has not made many mistakes so far. I say give him a chance."
Good Laugh!
Posted by: Bree Van De Camp | January 09, 2006 at 00:50
It also might be a good idea for anybody with a local Liberal Democrat MP (mine is Jenny Willott) to send letters as 'concerned constituents' urging him/her to pledge their support to John Hemming.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 09, 2006 at 01:00
Derek, if the Lib Dems elect John Hemming, they really will be hurling themselves over the edge of a cliff
Posted by: Sean Fear | January 09, 2006 at 09:19
"I wonder how many of the Islamic voters that vote Lib Dem also realise that the Lib Dems also support gay rights? If they don't know then it's about time they were told."
Isn't the implication of this that we don't support gay rights? What rights don't we support? Wouldn't promoting the fact that we are prepared to pander to bigotry or intolerance in any section of the community be just as damaging to our own chances? There is also the possibility of offending moderate Muslims by assuming they share the prejudices of the more traditional members of their community and showing ourselves to be racist and anti-gay in one fell swoop!
I'd have serious reservations about any candidate prepared to stoop to tactics like that. Not only for the risk of it back-firing for a whole host of reasons.
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 09, 2006 at 09:20
"I wonder how many of the Islamic voters that vote Lib Dem also realise that the Lib Dems also support gay rights? If they don't know then it's about time they were told..."
And which homophobic party were you intending to drive British Muslims into the arms of?
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 09, 2006 at 09:27
Respect.
Posted by: Sean Fear | January 09, 2006 at 09:44
It strikes me that we ought to be very careful about prescribing a singular voting intention for any faith group. Far better to have these groups represented and supporting mainstream parties rather than creating their own religiously based minority parties.
Posted by: Frank Young | January 09, 2006 at 09:52
Lord Ashdown has just come out in support of Campbell. It's starting to look difficult for Hughes.
Posted by: Frank Young | January 09, 2006 at 10:03
I disagree. I think there's a lot of anger in the Lib Dem membership about how Kennedy was treated, and Ming is seen as partly to blame. I think Hughes could ride that wave of resentment.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 09, 2006 at 10:08
HOTPRESS Charles Kennedy to defect to Cameron's Conservatives?
Posted by: Basil Blogger | January 09, 2006 at 11:24
I have just read Vince Cable's article in today's Telegraph. It could have been written by Oliver Letwin. The policies, except on the war, are virtually identical. Significant?
Posted by: Selsdon Man | January 09, 2006 at 11:25
I spotted a Sky News poll yesterday which put Simon Hughes way ahead of old Ming.
Posted by: mciahel | January 09, 2006 at 11:29
"Isn't the implication of this that we don't support gay rights? What rights don't we support? Wouldn't promoting the fact that we are prepared to pander to bigotry or intolerance in any section of the community be just as damaging to our own chances? There is also the possibility of offending moderate Muslims by assuming they share the prejudices of the more traditional members of their community and showing ourselves to be racist and anti-gay in one fell swoop!"
No, all we would be doing is pointing out some truths. I would have thought that the majority of Conservative party members (and even a majority of Conservative voters) would be against gay rights. The only time that someone might consider this racist, is if people from our own party start using the word "racist." An example. Michael Howard "it's not racist to..." By actually mentioning racism in the first place, you are putting that idea into peoples heads immediately - even if the idea isn't racist. I very much doubt that many "moderate Muslims" would vote Conservative as it is.
"And which homophobic party were you intending to drive British Muslims into the arms of?"
I see James. And because someone or a political party doesn't support gay rights, this automatically means they are homophobic?
Posted by: Chris Palmer | January 09, 2006 at 11:33
Of the 16,000 new Conservative members to Cameron's Conservatives 92% are former Lib Dems!
Posted by: Basil Blogger | January 09, 2006 at 11:33
"I would have thought that the majority of Conservative party members (and even a majority of Conservative voters) would be against gay rights."
Quite the opposite the Conservative party I know is largely warm, welcoming, respectful and caring.
"because someone or a political party doesn't support gay rights, this automatically means they are homophobic?"
I'm afraid it does, yes.
Posted by: Frank Young | January 09, 2006 at 11:38
"I see James. And because someone or a political party doesn't support gay rights, this automatically means they are homophobic?"
That's largely dependent on what you mean by "gay rights". Please say what rights you think should be opposed, and that you think "most" Conservatives oppose.
Posted by: James Hellyer | January 09, 2006 at 11:38
Quite James. A more articulate post than mine.
Posted by: Frank Young | January 09, 2006 at 11:44
I can't understand Hughes not running, he's never going to get another chance.
Also Hughes as a candidate would be the most likely way for the contest to get bitchy, which is what we all want to see.
Posted by: wasp | January 09, 2006 at 12:02
"No, all we would be doing is pointing out some truths." - by highlighting an opposing party supports an issue in a negative manner, the obvious inference is that you are taking an opposing point of view.
"I would have thought that the majority of Conservative party members (and even a majority of Conservative voters) would be against gay rights."
I am, in that case, proud to be in the minority. And aren't we trying to attract new voters rather than 'shore up the core vote' which has been such a success in the last three elections!
As for the reference to racism, isn't assuming that all people of a certain race or culture hold a particular view a form of racism?
I know many moderate muslims who run their own businesses and are thorougly integrated into British society. Were it not for the colour of their skin their socially conservative, economically liberal outlook on life would see them assumed to be natural targets for our party.
It is mainly the perception that the Conservative party is full of racists and bigots whether overt or subliminal that keeps them away.
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 09, 2006 at 12:04
There certainly are such voters, Mike, but the typical Muslim voter is much more likely to be an unskilled worker from the Indian sub-continent living in Bradford or Tower Hamlets.
Our party's support for the existence of Israel, support for the Iraq War, and (perceived) opposition to high levels of public spending by central and local government would be the most significant reasons why such voters wouldn't vote Conservative.
Posted by: Sean Fear | January 09, 2006 at 12:28
"I don't know about the rest of you but, five minutes after hearing him on the radio or television, I can never remember what it was he was saying."
Cameron has the same effect on me.
Posted by: Orange Booker | January 09, 2006 at 12:51
Graeme - I posted this on another thread:
Those Tories who think there are going to be defections are sadly mistaken. This is a quote from David Laws in today's Guardian:
The Orange Book, which I co-wrote, was an attempt to persuade the party to value all the liberal strands - including the economic. The book was caricatured as an attempt to turn the clock back to some dry Gladstonian liberalism of the 19th century. It was never any such thing. But I accept my responsibility to show that I and my Orange Book colleagues are as committed to social liberalism, or social justice, as they are. If I was not, I would be in the Conservative party or pursuing my own financial interests in the City - less bumpy career paths than being a Lib Dem MP.
Paddy Ashdown was correct on Radio 4 this morning to state that the dominant political philosophy in British politics at present is Liberalism. Its now up to the Liberal Democrats to ensure that the voters recognise that it is us that stands for it, not the lukewarm ersatz versions being pedalled by brown and Cameron.
Posted by: Orange Booker | January 09, 2006 at 12:52
They'd also need an economically liberal party to defect to, in any case.
Posted by: Sean Fear | January 09, 2006 at 12:53
You certainly have a point Sean, but if we publish condescending material that alienates people who have a natural sympathy to many of our principles we will do ourselves a huge disservice. I realise you aren't advocating the ideas that initially sparked this line of the debate, but that is what got us started.
In recruiting the often entrepreneurial (not a racist stereotype, most of my asian friends are either self-employed or working in family businesses) middle-class muslims into the fold we start the process of dispelling our image as a predominantly white party.
In terms of numbers the effect might not be massive, but in terms of sending out the message that we are a one-nation party it is a good place to start. We should be seen as the natural party of choice for anyone who believes in strong families, the ability to get ahead through hard work and a sense of responsibility to one's community; regardless of colour, creed or class.
I would disagree with your thoughts about them not supporting us, as they predate the war, and the sort of people I am talking about are keen to pay less tax, not more. I also have my doubts that Israel is really a burning issue to many moderate, well-educated muslims. They may be agitated about some of the tactics used by Israel, but I would hope that we would draw the line for our support of Israel some way short of carte-blanche approval of the use of excessive amounts of military power against civil unrest.
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 09, 2006 at 13:07
An example. Just because someone didn't support the war in Iraq doesn't automatically make them anti-war. Frank, you are wrong I'm afraid.
James, I think that many Conservatives are appalled that gay rights and the latest civil partnership laws are badly thought through and written (as with many other Labour laws – the foxhunting act for example.) One of the usual situations discussed that arises from this, is one concerning two sisters living together compared to two homosexuals living together in a civil partnership. I am sure you’ve heard this argument before, and as you know, this particular argument boils down to “why should one type of person have to pay inheritance tax, when a homosexual couple should not or does not.” Currently gay rights are highly biased, and a prime example of a Labour Government pandering to the whims of a minority of people in this country.
Gay rights campaigners are currently attempting to gain the same legal rights and status as heterosexual couples. Their legal status and “rights” should not be the same. All “partnerships” or “marriages” are unions that affirm a loving (possibly sexual) relationship within law (though what goes on in the bedroom is no business of the state.) However, the admirable outcome of a heterosexual union is reproduction – something homosexuals cannot do with the aid of science. Heterosexual unions should therefore be given significant preference and benefits over those of homosexual relationships because, 1) they are both a result of different aims and 2) reproduction should be rewarded as it has longer term benefits. However, rather curiously, many homosexuals like to make a big thing of being different, and yet use euphemisms such as “gay” to describe themselves. Why when they like being different, do they want to attempt to be the same as heterosexual couples in law?
Certainly different Conservatives probably have different views on “gay rights.” However, I suspect one reason why many Conservatives are against “gay rights” is because it’s just another form of political correctness.
As with many other progressive movements, some people might initially agree with these “gay rights” but over time the slow chipping away or adding to it will change what it originally was. An obvious example of this has been the European Union. Started off with possibly good intentions (depending on who you believe) to prevent war in Europe for a third time and reconstruct Europe. However, over a period of time, it was added to and added to without people really noticing or doing anything, until it became what is today. The process is still continuing.
Going back to my point concerning Islam: those of the Islamic faith are instructed by the Koran that homosexuals should be shunned/punished. Of course (like many other religions) this depends on your interpretation of the evidence. Most other major religions do not support homosexuality. If as you say Mike, many Islamic voters might naturally be Conservative targets, then is it not about time we started targeting them, and tell them what they’re really voting for?
The Conservative party should be supporting equality of opportunity and individualism.
“As for the reference to racism, isn't assuming that all people of a certain race or culture hold a particular view a form of racism?”
Yes Mike, but since anyone from any race or culture can be a member of the Islamic faith then it is therefore not “racist” to say that followers of Islam hold a particular view. The only people who might be racist are the people who are suggesting that followers of Islam might be solely of Arabic or Middle-Eastern origin or that followers of Islam have a certain colour of skin as you alluded to in your above post.
Perhaps those above should explain to me, and the rest of us as to why you in the minority support “gay rights.”
Posted by: Chris Palmer | January 09, 2006 at 13:09
Chris, rather than us explaining why gay partnerships should have rights in law, why don't you explain why they shouldn’t.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 09, 2006 at 13:17
Numerically, the sort of voters you're describing are much more likely to be Hindu than Muslim; we've had some success in winning support from such voters in places like Brent and Harrow (the ward I live in, Kenton,is 30% Hindu, and is very safely Conservative.)
I agree; we should be the natural home of people of all races who are upwardly mobile and moderately socially conservative. In time, I think we will be. After all, Jews were once heavily Labour, but are now more inclined to vote Conservative.
I don't think you can understate the importance of foreign policy to Muslim voters though. It keeps two small parties, Respect and Peoples' Justice, going on its own (in fact Respect are likely to pick up a whole tranche of seats in Tower Hamlets and Newham in May).
And I can't see us gaining the sort of Muslim voter who votes as his community leaders recommend, who in turn are heavily influenced by council grants and jobs.
Posted by: Sean Fear | January 09, 2006 at 13:18
With the demographic changes predicted to happen within the UK in the next 30-50 years, it would be hardly unexpected if a Muslim does not become Pime Minister in the UK and with Sharia Law I'm afraid that all homosexuals would have a terrible time!
Posted by: Basil Blogger | January 09, 2006 at 13:30
"Paddy Ashdown was correct on Radio 4 this morning to state that the dominant political philosophy in British politics at present is Liberalism"
Only if you think political correctness is liberal.
Posted by: John Hustings | January 09, 2006 at 13:41
"Chris, rather than us explaining why gay partnerships should have rights in law, why don't you explain why they shouldn’t."
Well since it was I that asked the question first... after you...
Posted by: Chris Palmer | January 09, 2006 at 13:46
I use the word racism because that is the term commonly used for what I describe. Technically you are right, hence the attempts to introduce religious hatred legislation, we can call it relgious over-simplification if you want. Most people seemed to understand my point though.
Islam is a religion whose primary sphere of influence, as it were, spreads from central Africa to SE. Asia. I do not know the percentage of British Muslims who are white, but I don't imagine it is all that high. I would be willing to wager that something close to 95% of British Muslims aren't white. The figures I have seen put around 60% of British Muslims as coming from Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian origins. The other main countries of origin are Turkey, Iraq and Egypt.
http://www.minorityrights.org/admin/Download/pdf/muslimsinbritain.pdf
I share some of your concerns about certain rights extended to gay couples not being extended to other forms of relationship, but that doesn't mean I'm against the gay rights. I'm for all sorts of people having those rights. I don't begrudge them to the gay community. Personally I'd approach the issue from an entirely diffent angle. The abolition of Inheritance tax and some new rules on pension and insurance transferability that applied to everyone would go a long way in avoiding many of the gripes people seem to have about civil partnerships.
Posted by: Mike Christie | January 09, 2006 at 13:48
The Muslim religion and Muslims firmly believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Sharia Law endorses the stoning of adultresses and also homosexuals.
Therefore if the predicted demographic changes in the UK happen and with it an eventual introduction of Sharia Law then the stoning and public flogging of homosexuals and adultresses as well as the the amputation of the hands of theives could well become Law in the UK.
Posted by: Basil Blogger | January 09, 2006 at 13:54
Well, if it stops shoplifters....
Posted by: James Maskell | January 09, 2006 at 13:58
Well, if it stops shoplifters....
Posted by: James Maskell | January 09, 2006 at 13:58
"Therefore if the predicted demographic changes in the UK happen and with it an eventual introduction of Sharia Law then the stoning and public flogging of homosexuals and adultresses as well as the the amputation of the hands of theives could well become Law in the UK."
Which is why it is so bizarre that the left have got in to bed with the Islamic community. But that's political correctness for you. Which is the *real* dominant political ideology in Britain.
Posted by: John Hustings | January 09, 2006 at 14:06
Considering that Sharia Law is incompatible with human rights law, Im thinking its extremely unlikely that Sharia Law would ever be approved in this country.
Posted by: James Maskell | January 09, 2006 at 14:09
Britian is a democracy and if the majority (based on predicted demographic changes)in the Britain of say 2030 or 2050 vote in Sharia Law then it becomes law.
Posted by: Basil Blogger | January 09, 2006 at 14:18
"Paddy Ashdown was correct on Radio 4 this morning to state that the dominant political philosophy in British politics at present is Liberalism."
There speaks the Dictator of Bosnia.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | January 09, 2006 at 14:23
Political correctness, affirmative action, equal opportunities has ensured that many in the ethnic community are now in very senior positions at the Home Office, the IND and the Foreign Office and other public bodies. To a certain extent they will in future be able to dictate foreign policy, immigration policy etc....
This should ensure that another Iraq or war in Iran would be less likely.
If it wasn't for foreign players were would English football be?
Posted by: Basil Blogger | January 09, 2006 at 14:52
BBC Ten O'Clock News is reporting that Mark Oaten will run...
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 09, 2006 at 22:13
Michael Brown, who backed CK's Lib Dems to the tune of £2.4 million, has said that he's 99.999% sure that he won't be giving them any more money because of the way CK was treated. The only concession he made was that Mark Oaten is a good man.
I know Lib Dems aren’t business savvy, but I was surprised at the naivety of the Lib Dem leadership runners: nobody has called their biggest backer to canvas his view – and, by leaving him in the cold, they've lost him. By contrast Cameron had secured the backing of Sir Phil Harris and others before publicly declaring.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 10, 2006 at 09:11
The question is where does Rupert Murdoch, Sir Richard Branson and the Sainsbury family backing now go, if they are horse racing fans, I hope they now back a winner?
Posted by: Basil Blogger | January 10, 2006 at 13:30
"I know Lib Dems aren’t business savvy, but I was surprised at the naivety of the Lib Dem leadership runners: nobody has called their biggest backer to canvas his view – and, by leaving him in the cold, they've lost him."
John Hemming is a millionaire - when he becomes leader, he'll be able to personally bankroll the Liberal Democrats I imagine.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | January 10, 2006 at 13:39