« Cameron: Modern Conservatism | Main | Huhne wants troops home by Christmas »

Comments

"but you advocate the state interfering to encourage abortion."

Abortion is legal. The state already provides this medical procedure. You use the words 'encouragement' and 'interference'...which are misplaced.

I am not advocating any change in the law and therefore no increased role for the state. Are you?

"You want to "trust" people? Then withdraw the state interference entirely! Otherwise you are inconsistent."

I've already said I'm a pragmatic Conservative and as such there will be inconsistencies on a case by case basis.

I don't mind, I've already said Conservatives must put pragmatism - what works best - ahead of dogma. My liberalism is an approach, an attitude to life, not a doctrine. I rather think yours is quite the opposite.

"Stop pretending you are morally neutral and I am morally biased. It is intellectually dishonest."

We all have a value system, including me! Just that you want government to impose and enforce your version on everyone else.

Curtail freedom and you absolve responsibility.

"Social conservatives want to protect the weak and the vulnerable. Yes, that involves *some* state restriction."

I just don't buy it. I think if social Conservatives were to be honest, they would say it's about protecting and reinforcing their own fears and prejudice.

"But don't pretend it has been the cause of all woe and sorrow in this world (or that it is responsible for all the Conservative Party's failures); that is simply mendacious."

I wouldn't. It was a political point. One which has led to the false impression that the Conservative Party is full of biggots, bullies and grumpy old men.

"Abortion is legal. The state already provides this medical procedure. You use the words 'encouragement' and 'interference'...which are misplaced."

They are not misplaced. I am pointing out the consequence of state interference.

Here you are abjuring me towards a smaller state, and "trusting people" and freedom and all that, and I am pointing out your inconsistency. Furthermore, I am pointing out the consequences of the state interference which you support.

You see, the state paying for abortion means that abortion is encouraged (whether that's your intention or not). So it's no surprise to see that abortion rates have rocketed to 180,000 a year. It is a *direct* result of government interference.

You cannot claim that the government interference which *you* support does not have an effect on the morality of the people of this country! It *has* had manifestly harmful effects!

True freedom would mean allowing people to face the consequences of their actions.

"I am not advocating any change in the law and therefore no increased role for the state. Are you?"

I advocate *reducing* the role of the state by making women pay for their own abortion.

And I also advocate tightening the law by reducing the time limit within which a woman may have an abortion (so does Cameron, as I understand it). I believe that after a certain period of time, a woman is totally irresponsible to want an abortion.

The effect of my changes would be obvious. Abortion rates would go down, women would *have* to behave more responsibly, and the benefits to society of that increased responsibility are untold.

"I've already said I'm a pragmatic Conservative and as such there will be inconsistencies on a case by case basis"

So you're inconsistent, and that means you can't censure me for wanting to tighten the law in certain areas! I, too, am a pragmatic conservative. I am not an ideologue. It is *you* that was talking in ideological language.

"I don't mind, I've already said Conservatives must put pragmatism - what works best - ahead of dogma. "

I agree, and I believe that the consequences of what you advocate are manifestly bad. Unless, that is, you don't think abortion and single-motherhood is a bad thing (which is a moral judgement).

"My liberalism is an approach, an attitude to life, not a doctrine. I rather think yours is quite the opposite."

My approach is not a doctrine. That is nothing more than a smear. You haven't pointed out inconsistencies in my position, as I have with yours. You haven't demonstrated that my beliefs are harmful, as I have with yours. You haven't demonstrated anything negative about my beliefs at all. All you have done is smear.

"We all have a value system, including me! Just that you want government to impose and enforce your version on everyone else."

Ugh. You refuse to understand. Government *cannot* be morally neutral. You say I'm trying to impose my morals on others; but *you* are trying to impose your morals on others. It is *impossible* for government to be morally neutral.

Why don't you understand this?

"Curtail freedom and you absolve responsibility. "

No. It is the welfare state (which you support) which absolves responsibility.

"I just don't buy it. I think if social Conservatives were to be honest, they would say it's about protecting and reinforcing their own fears and prejudice."

"I wouldn't. It was a political point. One which has led to the false impression that the Conservative Party is full of biggots, bullies and grumpy old men."

More smears and ad hominem. Can't you argue without calling people prejudiced and bigoted?

"what works best

I echo John Husting's query about how 180,000 abortions, the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe, huge rise in single parenthood, increases in drug use, crime and disorder can possibly be seen as 'what works best'

I think I have pointed out that your views are harmful - when you take away freedom, you take away individual responsibility. And the very activities you so oppose go unchallenged by people like you and me. We all say, it's a matter for the police, the courts or any other agent of the state. Collective responsibility erodes.

Your point about being consistent is a symtom of the social conservative not a virtue. you become dogmatic in your belief system and can't see the wood for the trees. That's how you can justify the state taking away our freedoms.

I think your point about charging women for abortion as the answer to encouraging responsibility is shallow. Do you really believe the price of the treatment is all that stands between your anti abortion views and the number of abortions every year?

As I said before - society should be trusted with freedom. The state should prevent harm to others.

what works best Mike lies in the hands of local people, local communities and the individuals themselves - it's in our collective hands. That's what freedom is about.

Do you really believe the price of the treatment is all that stands between your anti abortion views and the number of abortions every year?

No, but the fact that it is available free, almost on-demand MUST have an effect on the numbers as some of the responsibility is taken away.

This line of debate is about much more than abortion it is at the heart of Conservative politics versus Socialism-lite.

Why work if the state pays you a comfortable amount to stay at home?

Why take care of your health if the state will pay to make you better, no matter how determined an effort you have made to make yourself ill through excess?

Why worry about who you sleep with if the state will give you an abortion for free, or STD treatment for free, or pay for the cost of raising your child?

Why worry about saving for your old age if the state will penalise you for it?

Give one real reason why elective abortions should be available on the NHS?

"what works best Mike lies in the hands of local people, local communities and the individuals themselves"

Indeed, so why should the state sponsor abortion? You keep contradicting yourself. The NHS should be to treat people for genuine illness and injury, not to provide a lifestyle service for reckless teenagers.

Does anyone know why we are all in italics?

"I think I have pointed out that your views are harmful"

No you haven't done any such thing. If you have pointed out what terrible harm my views have caused, then I must have missed it.

"when you take away freedom, you take away individual responsibility."

This is a mantra you continually repeat; you claim to be a "pragmatic conservative", yet you resort to ideology in your arguments.

I have told you that what really erodes responsibility is the permissive views you advocate. Why? Because the consequence of those views is *a bigger state*.

You claim to support local charities etc, you explicity emphasised this as one of your beliefs.

But,

1) You cannot do this without minimising the welfare state. The welfare state usurps the place of local charities.

2) The welfare state usurps the role of family, extended family, and the effects that they have in encouraging responsible behaviour

3) The attitudes of social liberals like yourself -- with your none-too-suppressed scorn for social conservatives -- will undermine traditional institutions and thus perpetuate the social problems. This in turn will drive demand for the welfare state, which just gets bigger.

Economic liberalism and social liberalism are, in my view, inconsistent. Social liberalism drives the problems which increase the demand for big government. Big government, in turn, undermines traditional institutions which further undermines traditional morality.

It's a vicious circle.

The result of this is, as Mike Christie points out, "180,000 abortions, the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe, huge rise in single parenthood, increases in drug use, crime and disorder". How you, as a self-labelled "pragmatic conservative", can consider this to "work" is beyond me.

"We all say, it's a matter for the police, the courts or any other agent of the state. Collective responsibility erodes."

The logical conclusion of this statement is that we should have no laws at all, since they undermine responsibility.

"Your point about being consistent is a symtom of the social conservative not a virtue. you become dogmatic in your belief system and can't see the wood for the trees."

I am sorry, but being consistent is not the same as being an ideologue. The reason I am consistent is I have not stated an absolutist philosophy which I can be held accountable to.

If you repeat mantras like "trust people" and "give responsibility" and abjure people to follow them again and again and again, and then *you* are found to be advocating things which go contrary those mantras, then you are inconsistent.

The answer, of course, is to be more cautious in the dogmas which you go around espousing.

I don't claim to be wrapped up in an ideology. But I am not *using* ideology as a weapon in debate. You are. You are using this "freedom" line as your only attack against me (it is the only criticism you *can* make). In doing so, you must accept it is legitimate for me to criticise you in return for not being consistent to your own stated principles.

Get it?

"I think your point about charging women for abortion as the answer to encouraging responsibility is shallow"

How charming of you.

"Do you really believe the price of the treatment is all that stands between your anti abortion views and the number of abortions every year?"

I believe it would make a very big difference, yes.

People would act more responsibly if they knew there were consequences to their actions. But in taking away the consequences, the state is absolving them of responsibility (the very thing you accuse me of doing!).

"As I said before - society should be trusted with freedom. The state should prevent harm to others."

See, ideological purity again. You don't hear me spouting platitudes like this; that's why I can't be faulted for inconsistency.

Mike I agree with you - I can't see why I should pay for elective abortions but presumably some civil servant has done a cost benefit analysis working out that the cost of aborting a viable foetus is less than the cost of supporting the mother, paying childrens tax credit, giving away Gordon's £250, educating (however badly) the child, ongoing tax credits , NHS costs for treatment resulting from drug/alcohol/obestity/ stupidity, disability allowance when they trip over a badly maintained pavement and finally pension.
If they considered that child could with a good education, self reliance become a productive member of society and be a wage earner when in my declining years I need someone to contribute to my pension...perhaps then we'd get rid of the iniquitous Gillick ruling that takes parental dissaproval out of the picture, makes people responsible for their hehaviour etc.

Time to end the italics madness.

mike christie started it :-)

I thought it was my fault! If we could edit posts I'd have fixed it ;-)

John, I don't mind being called inconsistent - as I said, my liberal values (in contrast to your paternalism) are about an approach, an attitude to life, which is positive, optimistic and puts some faith in human nature. Of course it isn't always rewarded, but the important thing is how we respond to failings in human behaviour - do we take away the freedoms people have abused or do we defend those freedoms and take collective responsibility to make things better? I'd choose the latter whenever possible.

What saddens me about the tone of your argument is the cyncical view of human nature which it reveals (often thinly cloaked under the argument of saving taxpayer money). I agree that many choose to live off the welfare state, but I believe that many more would prefer to be independent, self sufficient and be making a significant contribution to society. So the better way to reduce the welfare state is to appeal to these values...a liberal carrot rather than your parternal stick.

You have conceded above that you don't trust people to make decisions for themselves and you have admitted that you would curtail freedoms to prevent behaviour you oppose. I could understand if I was having this debate with a socialist or New Labour, but it amazes me to hear it from a Conservative (are you?).

This has been an argument about how you view people and the world. the social liberal is an optimist and the social conservative is a pessimist.

michael,

Law making is about removing "freedoms". All laws remove some "freedoms". The question is always whether a greater good is achieved by curtailing a freedom than by allowing it.

Responsibility comes through knowing that actions have consequences. The statist, liberal approach removes consequences for many forms of behaviour. Social liberalism removes stigma from many forms of behaviour.

This has led us to a society where a couple with no jobs feel it is their 'right' to have child after child and depend on the state to pay for everything.

What about my right to not fund their selfish lifestyle?

The removal of stigmas around sex and parenthood have created the 'right' to a state-funded abortion and the removal of direct tangible consequences of irresponsible behaviour. The state gives more and more money from responsible people who work and pay taxes to irresponsible people who feel it is their 'right' to have a state funded lifestyle.

I'm sure we all agree that the state has some role in ensuring that "there is a below which we will not allow persons to live and labor"

"I agree that many choose to live off the welfare state, but I believe that many more would prefer to be independent, self sufficient and be making a significant contribution to society. So the better way to reduce the welfare state is to appeal to these values...a liberal carrot rather than your parternal stick."

When one's income on benefits is close to or even more than one's income in work, even the most self-respecting person is going to question the worth in going out to work. What carrot do you offer? Tax and benefits both need to be examined to ensure that the genuinely needy are helped, but that should not be to the extent that work becomes optional.

It isn't about not trusting people, it is about understanding human nature and the fact that people will often make a choice that is most beneficial to them. We sometimes have to ensure that choices that are harmful to communities or society as a whole are also harmful to an individual.

"the social liberal is an optimist and the social conservative is a pessimist."

Usually, the pessimist is a realist.

"John, I don't mind being called inconsistent"

In which case I would recommend that you don't go around entreating people towards "freedom" and "responsibility" when you don't seem to be able to follow your own advice.

"as I said, my liberal values (in contrast to your paternalism) are about an approach, an attitude to life, which is positive, optimistic and puts some faith in human nature."

Are you *trying* to sound like a bad parody of David Cameron?

I don't accept that my views are "paternal" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

I fail to see how you are putting "faith" in human nature if you advocate the state interfering to reward (and/or take the penalties away from) bad behaviour.

If you *really* had faith in human nature, you would withdraw the welfare state under the firm conviction that no-one's gonna need it anyway.

You are good at talking in wishy-washy jargon, but not much else.

"Of course it isn't always rewarded, but the important thing is how we respond to failings in human behaviour - do we take away the freedoms people have abused or do we defend those freedoms and take collective responsibility to make things better?"

I think the first step is realise that the state has an active influence in how people behave. As I frequently point out to you, it isn't neutral as you naively seem to believe.

"What saddens me about the tone of your argument is the cyncical view of human nature which it reveals"

This is silly. I don't think it's "cynical" to accept that financial rewards and penalties have an influence on human behaviour (perhaps not directly, but indirectly). It *is* the underlying assumption of capitalism after all. And as someone who *claims* to be a conservative, you *do* believe in capitalism, don't you?

"(often thinly cloaked under the argument of saving taxpayer money)."

I haven't spoken once about "saving taxpayer money".

"I agree that many choose to live off the welfare state, but I believe that many more would prefer to be independent, self sufficient and be making a significant contribution to society."

Whenever you have a situation where it is a financial penalty to be working rather than living off the state, you will see unemployment rocket. Is that just a coincidence?

Whenever the state intervenes, it affects human behaviour (and therefore morality). If you don't think there's a correlation, then perhaps you should study the matter more in depth.

"So the better way to reduce the welfare state is to appeal to these values...a liberal carrot rather than your parternal stick."

Except that the carrot you are offering is to those who behave irresponsibly. You offer no carrot to those who would behave in a "traditonal" moral manner.

So how can you claim to be "value" neutral, and dismiss *me* as the nasty moralist?

"Encouragement" isn't going to reduce the welfare state. It isn't "cynical" to realise this.

I don't think you *want* the welfare state reduced. If it *were* reduced, it would inhibit the spread of your socially liberal values. There would be less single mothers to feel sorry for, and less abortions to defend the "freedom" of.

"You have conceded above that you don't trust people to make decisions for themselves and you have admitted that you would curtail freedoms to prevent behaviour you oppose."

No. I would curtail freedoms to prevent harm to others, and to encourage not discourage good behaviour. My carrot and stick would be set up (to a more natural situation) so that good behaviour is rewarded and bad behaviour is penalised.

But the very mention of terms like "good and bad" in terms of behaviour is enough to make a social liberal like yourself sick to the stomache.

"We must not make moral judgements, oh no" -- no matter how many suffer as a result, and how much misery it causes. Moralism is an evil.

Right?

Encouraging marriage through the tax system isn't "curtailing freedom". But it is a socially conservative belief. An institution which it can be demonstrated is hugely beneficial to children should *not* be penalised; it should be privileged.

Making women pay for their own abortions is not "curtailing freedom". It is encouraging responsibility for behaviour by making people face the consequences of their actions.

Besides which, in the case of both euthanasia and abortion, the state is intervening, in your words, to "prevent direct harm to others". You may not consider a foetus to be a life, but that in itself is a value judgement, and a judgement many others do not share. Similarly, you may not consider the very old or the infirm as deserving of life as a basic right, but I do and believe they should be offered protection.

If it is "paternal" to value life, then so be it. In my view, it is merely a sign of a healthy society. I don't usually like gratuitous references to the Nazis or the holocaust, but the point should be made that Nazi values are the polar opposite of Pro-life values. When you view human beings in utilitarian terms, the possibilities of another holocaust seem less far-fetched.

"I could understand if I was having this debate with a socialist or New Labour, but it amazes me to hear it from a Conservative (are you?)."

I am more of a conservative than you are. It's probably why you despise me.

"This has been an argument about how you view people and the world. the social liberal is an optimist and the social conservative is a pessimist."

I don't think it's particularly helpful to talk about optimism and pessimism. The social conservative does accept that human beings are not perfect (I don't know about the liberal), and realises that people are likely to be affected by inducements and penalties from the state.

Your logic would lead one to the position that, "one should not punish murderers; we should just encourage them not to do it again. To want to punish is cynical and pessimistic, and lacks faith in human nature".

Well, maybe it does lack faith in human nature. Or maybe it's just not being an idiot. You decide.


Yes Mike, you make a much more reasonable argument, but I do think you underestimate the potential good in human nature, particularly when people are rooted in strong communities and are able to recognise the freedoms they own. I'm saying I'm not dogmatic about what works best - which will often involve legislation (eg I don't advocate abolishing the law which says a driver must wear seatbelts - though from a purely libertarian stand point many would), but I do get suspicious when the argument keeps coming back to money to justify socially conservatism. Enforcing behaviour through the state can cost as much as what is wrongly perceived as the consequences of social liberalism and a permissive society. But that's not the point, I'm concerned with defending individual liberty and freedom not only because it's right, but because it is of greater benefit to society.

My preference is for consequences of behaviour to come from strong communities and collective value judgements rather than the state. To do that we need to create a new sense of community so that we reconnect freedom with responsibility to others.

That's not unrealistic, but I admit it's the harder option - it can work much more effectively than for example, Blair's authoritarian approach to respect, hunting bans or getting people off welfare and into work. Because people find ways to break the rules and coercion removes an individuals value system - what's right and wrong becomes us v them.

Conservatives need to start articulating liberal values (or had Davis won, social conservatism) in relation to people and values rather than people and money. Failure to do so, makes us sound hard and uncaring.

John, calm down dear, it's just a debate!

My point is that 'morality' is better developed and enforced by the people than by the state.

michael, if you believe morality should not be developed and enforced by the state, why do you advocate state sponsored abortion that encourages the morality that unwanted pregnancy need not have consequences and the 'morality' that the 'rights' of the mother to convenience supercede the rights of the unborn child to life?

"Yes Mike, you make a much more reasonable argument, but I do think you underestimate the potential good in human nature"

Mike's view of human nature seems to have a greater connection with the evidence.

"particularly when people are rooted in strong communities and are able to recognise the freedoms they own. "

How do you propose "rooting" people in "strong communities"? Or is this just jargon?

The welfare state destroys strong communities by supplanting the place of the extended family.

"I'm saying I'm not dogmatic about what works best - which will often involve legislation (eg I don't advocate abolishing the law which says a driver must wear seatbelts - though from a purely libertarian stand point many would)"

Why not? What about "encouragement" michael??

Where's your faith in "human nature"???

You're just a hardened cynic.

"but I do get suspicious when the argument keeps coming back to money to justify socially conservatism."

The argument has not come back to money. It is *you* that brings it back to money all the time.

The argument is about the state *encouraging* irresponsible lifestyles, and *discouraging* responsible ones. That has an effect on morality.

This has nothing to do with saving money.

"Enforcing behaviour through the state can cost as much as what is wrongly perceived as the consequences of social liberalism and a permissive society."

Once again, you refuse to accept the point that your views "enforce behaviour" just as much, if not more, than the social conservatives' views.

The only difference is that the result of the enforcement of your views is, "180,000 abortions a year, the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, rising single-motherhood, and an increase in drug abuse, crime and disorder".

You haven't explained what the adverse consequences of socially conservative views would be. Would all those extra married couples have such a terribly tarnishing effect on the socially liberal country you'd like to construct?

"My preference is for consequences of behaviour to come from strong communities and collective value judgements rather than the state."

This wouldn't appear to be the case. By slamming all social conservatives as "paternalistic bigots" you would appear to be trying to remove all taboos from bad behaviour. So where are the value judgements going to come from when you say that all value judgements are wrong (or "uncaring")?

"To do that we need to create a new sense of community so that we reconnect freedom with responsibility to others."

So you keep telling us. How do we do this in tandem with socially liberal views?

"That's not unrealistic, but I admit it's the harder option - it can work much more effectively than for example, Blair's authoritarian approach to respect, hunting bans or getting people off welfare and into work."

No-one's defending Tony Blair's approach to those things. You once again argue against straw men (conveniently enough, because you find it impossible to respond to the arguments presented to you). Incidently, your views have much more in common with Tony Blair's than mine do.

"Because people find ways to break the rules and coercion removes an individuals value system - what's right and wrong becomes us v them."

I'm not sure I even understand what this means. You seem to have noticed that the welfare state corrupts people (i.e. by causing them to break rules, and thus viewing the money they receive as "entitlements", which in turn creates an "us vs them" mentality), yet you can't offer any way to change this mental corruption other than "encouragement"?

This seems to me to be the equivalent of saying that the solution to fighting terrorism is a collective "group hug".

"Conservatives need to start articulating liberal values"

Hey, why not let the Liberal party do that? There's a thought!

"in relation to people and values rather than people and money. Failure to do so, makes us sound hard and uncaring."

It isn't "uncaring" to realise that single motherhood makes people miserable (both the women themselves, and their children). It isn't uncaring, therefore, to wish to reduce the numbers of single mothers in the only reasonable way possible -- by removing the inducements which have caused single motherhood to boom.

It *is* uncaring to think that single-motherhood is a perfectly happy lifestyle choice, and that everyone should behave as irresponsibly as they want, no matter how much misery it causes.

"My point is that 'morality' is better developed and enforced by the people than by the state."

Until "people" control the tax system and the laws -- rather than the state -- then the state is going to have an effect on morality, whether you like it or not.

michael, I do not 'underestimate the potential good in human nature' I recognise that given a choice between doing hard manual work for minimum wage, paying for child care, tax et al. or sitting at home claiming benefits give as much if not more disposable income many people would choose the latter. I am also honest enough to say I don't really blame them. It is government policy that drives this attitude. If low earners were taken out of tax, and proper support were given to families that made even minimum wage far more attractive than benefits then the problem wouldn't arise.

Again, with view to abortion, health, single parenthood, saving for the future and all sorts of areas where people should take responsiility for themselves; the idea that people can act utterly irresponsibly in the safe knowledge that the state (and what we really mean by that is the taxpayer at the end of the day) will pick up the pieces. It is statist social intervention that is driving behaviour by removing so many consequences from irresponsible behaviour that people feel they have an absolute right to live exactly how they like irregardless of the damage and cost to those around them.

Exactly Mike, social conservatives don't "hate single mothers" as is often claimed. What they hate is the state of affairs which has (perfectly understandably) driven the rise in single motherhood.

If you want to blame anyone, it isn't the single mothers themselves, but the social liberals who have brought this terrible situation about.

John, we are of course in agreement, further to this I read a great article a few weeks ago that made me think of the other great result of social liberalism that fuels the rise in single mothers.

The removal of any social stigma from men who abandon pregnant girlfriends.

Years ago it would be a scandal, the man would be expected by society to 'do the decent thing' and 'make an honest woman of her'.

Now it is perfectly acceptable for a man to make a woman pregnant then have no further contact. It is deemed that his 'right' to convenience again takes precedence over the child's right to have a father.

By removing all sense of stigma and coercion to behave in a certain fashion the liberals have again fuelled the notion that the right of an individual to do as they please trumps all other rights, especially the rights of those who can not defend themselves.

You guys are kind of pathetic. You can't even vote in US elections. And for the record, Mormons are Christians, not a cult...don't be so closed minded and bigoted.

Well what a lot of posts on a little known US governor who may or may not run for the white house in 2 years!

For the record, location is more important recently than name or height in deciding presidential elections. Candidates from the north don't tend to win. Indeed the last winning (elected) candidate from the north was Kennedy (and it is generally accepted now that he stole the 1960 election anyway); Ford was from Michigan, but not elected, and Bush Senior was from Connecticut, but relocated to Texas. The others: Johnson (Texas), Nixon (California), Carter (Georgia), Reagan (California), Bush Senior (Texas), Clinton (Arkansas) and 'W' (Texas).

The Democrats picked a Mass. candiadate last time and lost, can't see the GOP doing the same. McCain could take it, but will be 72 in 2008 -older than Reagan when he took power. My money is on Condi, ESPECIALLY if (as I think will happen) the Dems do go for La Clinton. They would outdo them - not only a woman, but a black woman! (Not meant in any way to be derogatory to Condi, who I have a great deal of time for). Note that McCain is from Arizona, and Condi from the South - neither are from New England.

Another name to look out for in the Dem camp is Delaware senator (and plagiarist of Neil Kinnock!) Joe Biden. Popular among both parties, he would not be as potentially divisive as Hilary.

But don't underestimate Mrs. C. She has been working for this all her life - she is a ruthless operator, and knows that she only gets one chance. She won't let this one go.

Frankly, I'm in the ABH camp - ANYONE but Hilary! God help the western world should she get in.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker