ROTW: Harper and Hague are this week's stars

Today ConservativeHome begins a new feature reviewing the political week.  The Review will appear every Friday or Saturday.

HOT TOPIC OF THE WEEK… Tax.  Britain is becoming increasingly burdened by Gordon Brown’s taxes and George Osborne used a speech to acknowledge the economic cost of this burden but he then put “stability” before tax relief in a speech that provoked a lot of energetic commenting on this site.

A GOOD WEEK… for political blogs.  Canada’s blogging Tories performed five main roles for the victorious Stephen Harper:

(1) They helped to expose the corruption of the Chretien/ Martin Liberal Party.
(2) They kept the corruption scandal in the news cycle when mainstream old media moved on to other things.
(3) They fact checked and fisked the outpourings of the mainstream media.
(4) They put out videos, cartoons and other campaign ads that were too edgy for the official Conservative Party but reached voters that tune out of more conventional messaging.
(5) They maintained activist morale.

A(NOTHER) BAD WEEK… for the LibDems.  It began with revelations about Mark Oaten’s use of a male prostitute and the News of the World’s suggestion of sex acts that were too lurid to print.  A LibDem candidate defected to Cam's Cons and then Simon Hughes was outed as having had homosexual relationships even though he had repeatedly denied that he was gay.  The week ended with the LibDems slipping to just 13% in the latest YouGov/ Telegraph poll.

TORY POLITICIAN OF THE WEEK… William Hague.  Members of the ConservativeHome.com Members’ Panel gave him a net satisfaction rating of +83%.  Just 4% of the Panel were dissatisfied with the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s performance.

PLAY OF THE WEEK… David Cameron at PMQs.  Sir Ming may have asked the most worthy question about the west’s failure to help the people of Darfur but the Tory leader delivered the memorable performance.  Cameron wins the Play of the Week for taunting Blair by saying that the CND member of 1983 had gone into politics to "soak the rich and ban the bomb" but had been "sucking up to the rich and dropping bombs" ever since.

EXTERNAL BLOG POST OF THE WEEK… Brendan Simms on the Social Affairs Unit blog – pointing out that David Cameron’s chair of the security policy group - 'Pauline Neville Chamberlain' -  was no neocon.

CONSERVATIVEHOME POST OF THE WEEK… We compared the policies of the AusCons, CanCons and USCons with the CamCons and found Britain’s Tories increasingly out-of-step with their English-speaking counterparts.  BBC World Service interviewed me about the comparison for the People & Politics programme.

THE POST THAT RECEIVED THE MOST COMMENTS...

• More tax anxiety (172)

THE POST THAT RECEIVED THE FEWEST COMMENTS...

• Remembering Darfur (3)

COMMENT OF THE WEEK... Simon C responding to the post on the Assisted Dying Bill.  This is one of four points he made:

"Contrary to their protestations, pro-euthanasia campaigners are seeking to impose their views on others: they are saying that in some cases an active intervention to bring a patient's life to an end months earlier than would otherwise have happened should be regarded as a positive & good outcome. They are saying that medicine is something that you can take to bring about the end of your life, not just to make you better. In short, they are imposing a view that would upturn the established principles on which our medical culture has been based for centuries. As a result people living with life-threatening conditions, who are fighting every step of the way, are having to read in the newspapers or see on television the view that it would be far more dignified of them to take the euthanasia route. There are other ways of dying in dignity. It is quite wrong for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society to suggest that it has a monopoly on dignity by changing its name to "Dying in Dignity" and then applying for trademarks to claim exclusive ownership of that language."

Comments

[William Norton]

Excellent - at last the return of Good Week/Bad Week.

But, with maximum respect O High Enlightened Editorial One, I fear you have missed the true significant event of the week: the plot to scrap the UK Theme from Radio Four.

Such a complex issue in all its nuances can be canvassed only by a crude opinion poll. I have a modest suggestion as follows:

Using your skill and judgment, select one of the following options:

(A) The UK Theme is an uplifting and clever synthesis of folk tunes from the component nations of Britain and it must be retained as a vital symbol of our island's great history.

(B) The UK Theme should be axed because it is backward-looking and fails to reflect the exciting multicultural diversity of modern Britain.

(C) The UK Theme should be axed because it is an undistinguished musical melange and, frankly, it would be better to have another blasted news bulletin than that dirge at 5.30 in the ruddy morning.

(D) The UK Theme is an undistinguished musical melange which sounds like a dirge and perhaps another blasted news bulletin would be better - BUT anything which those pinko liberals at the BBC want to get rid of must be, by definition, both beautiful and true and we should rally to its defence because it will annoy people like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

(E) What's the UK Theme?

(F) What's Radio Four?

[Phil J]

D.

[Mike Christie]

E when the story broke, now D

[Frank Young]

172 posts about tax

3 about Darfur

The party has a long, long way to go.

Things like this depress me.

[Selsdon Man]

Don't you mean the bloggers on this site, Frank?

They are not necessarily representative of the Party as a whole.

[Tory T]

Well done, Tim - for shameing us (and I include myself) for ignoring Darfur. It's so easy to bang on about hot topics and fast moving stories while turning away from a difficult subject.

Darfur is depressing because we are forced to accept our own impotence when confronted with evil. There is also a profound double standard that has got nothing to do with physical distance. The more like us either the victims OR the perpetrators of atrocities are the quicker we are to pile in. A group of fairly primitive African pastoralists living in an inhospitable part of an inaccessible country are as alien to us as men on the moon. And the Arab militias who are persecuting them are like characters from a Victorian novel.

It requires a leap of imagination to understand that people are being disposessed, raped, mutilated and murdered NOW because we in the west cannot stir ourselves from our prosperous torpor.

Why does this keep happening? It's as if Bosnia and Rwanda never took place. Maybe in a few years time some Hollywood director will bring out Hotel Sudan and we can all shake our heads and wonder why we never sent the troops in.

A neocon foreign policy means accepting intervention for national security and democratisation reasons. But it also means that when genocide (or something very like it) is taking place we don't just sit on our hands. It doesn't have to involve a massive invasion. Think of the good we did in Kurdistan just by establishing a no-fly zone.

Lots of people think that Darfur doesn't matter. Lots more think that it does but there's nothing we can do about it. That's why the thread got only three posts. Is there any hope at all of western populations rising up and compelling their governments to do something?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

The juxtaposition of Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague as Tory Politician Of The Week and Darfur as the post that received fewest comments is quite interesting.

On that thread I asked what William Hague has had to say on the matter since his appointment and nobody was able to confirm that he has said anything of note.

I was one of those who voted positively for William Hague in the Conservative Democracy(But Only For Members!) Poll but, given that it seems he's done little apart from indulge in ultimately futile grandstanding about whether the Conservatives should be a part of some obscure continental political bloc, I'll be revising that opinion if I participate in the next poll.

[Chris]

I believe Hague has been busy dealing with our withdrawal from the EPP and the setting up of a new non-federalist centre-right grouping for the European parliament. I think I read on Iain Dale's blog (Correct me if I'm wrong) that it had be done by the end of March this year if we were to get a slice of the group funding.

[Frank Young]

I have also read that in the Times today. We will wait with baited breath.

[John Hustings]

The reason why people didn't post about Darfur is not because people don't *care* about it, but that it's less cause for controversy and discussion.

People don't find anything to argue about over Darfur.

[Richard Bailey]

Tax - too much, too soon.
Darfur - too little, too late.
Discussion over.

[James Hellyer]

172 posts about tax

3 about Darfur

The party has a long, long way to go.

Things like this depress me.

And which one of the threads did you contribute to, Frank?

[Frank Young]

Quite James. I certainly don't absolve myself of blame, i'm as guilty as anyone.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I believe Hague has been busy dealing with our withdrawal from the EPP and the setting up of a new non-federalist centre-right grouping for the European parliament. I think I read on Iain Dale's blog (Correct me if I'm wrong) that it had be done by the end of March this year if we were to get a slice of the group funding."

That's ok then - as long as we get our fair share of European taxpayers' money and change who we sit alongside at the trumped-up talking-shop, it doesn't matter that innocent civilians are being slaughtered in Darfur.

[malcolm]

This review of the week seems a good idea Tim.A couple of points.I can't quite understand why William Hague has won any accolades from our bloggers.Apart from one verty inconsequential interview in one of the tabloids I was not aware that he had done or said anything in his current role.Perhaps you might like to ask those bloggers who feel that he is doing so well why?
With regards to the Tax v Darfur debate I find this unsuprising.Are there any realistic ideas that anyone in Britain can propose that would help the situation in Darfur? Without them it is very difficult to think of anything worthwhile to say on the subject.

[John Hustings]

If I do just one good deed this week, it will be to comment on a thread about Darfur, then I can let my conscience rest in the knowledge that I've done my bit for humanity.

[Frank Young]

Engage constructively about the debate on supra-national government

[Richard]

It isn't just this blog but the media and vast swathes of the country who are more interested in the British tax system than what is going on in Darfur. The reason? It's closer to home. Any sane conservative should realise that people are naturally more interested in the going's on of their local community and country. That isn't to say that people aren't interested in what happens elsewhere (note the Tsunami response), simply that it is harder to engage public enthusiasm. I'm not being measn spirited, it just strikes me as very very obvious.

You might as well criticise the BBC for reporting on British backpackers being murdered but not non-British backpackers being murdered - there just isn't the same level of interest. although one might argue that if the media paid more attention to Darfur there would be more public anger.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"You might as well criticise the BBC for reporting on British backpackers being murdered but not non-British backpackers being murdered."

I'm sure Sir Ian Blair will soon oblige.

[Sean Fear]

In fairness, what exactly *can* we do about Darfur?

Our army is already hugely overstrectched - and doubtless Bliar & co would be only too delighted to see our troops get sued for anything they did in Darfur.

[Ted]

On Ian Blair - I noticed in his rant against the media he brought up again this chip he seems to have about the middle class objecting to these uppity police. Is he the result of some South Korean experiment producing the ideal Nulab clone with some of John Prescott & some of Tony Blair ?
If the Sun and Mirror led their front pages with headlined stories of South London black on black violence, with gangland drug shootings how long before they would be accused on racism for giving overexposure to violence in the black community?
I can see that Sir Ian is feeling hounded by the press (mainly as a result of some of his officers killing an innocent man from an ethnic minority) but couldn't we see less of him on the TV and more effective policing for the black, white, brown, gay, stright and confused citizens of London?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I can see that Sir Ian is feeling hounded by the press (mainly as a result of some of his officers killing an innocent man from an ethnic minority) but couldn't we see less of him on the TV and more effective policing for the black, white, brown, gay, stright and confused citizens of London?"

Exactly Ted. As I said at my blog (forgive the blatant plug!), if Ian Blair and the rest of the political correctness brigade focused on doing their jobs instead of trying to turn Britain into a Guardian reader's wet dream, there would be far fewer murders and similar crimes for the media to be institutionally racist about in the first place.

[Richard Allen]

The simple fact is that the fiscal policy of the Conservative Party is not only going to be a key issue at the next election but may also have major effects on Britain's economic performance and standard of living for many years to come. It is therefore quite right that those interested in the conservative party and the conservative movement should take a great deal of interest in it.

In comparison it is extremely unlikely that Darfur will be a major election, and more importantly, most of us take the quite reasonable view that our options on this subject are extremely limited. I don't see any feasable course of action which is likely to make much difference. If anyone has any ideas I will discuss it but I don't see 'Oh my God isn't it awful, we must do something' as the basis of a worthwhile debate.

[Simon C]

Editor,

Comment of the week? Surprised & honoured - thank you.

I am also amongst those surprised at Hague's approval ratings - unless it's been given as a welcome back to the frontline of British politics. I am a great Hague fan - I fought an election under him & would gladly do so again. However, he really hasn't done a lot in the new job yet.

The EPP issue seems to have been put on ice, he hasn't said anything about Darfur, in fact he hasn't said or done very much at all. This is all the more disppointing because Liam Fox, a close ally of his, laid some superb foundations on which a new Conservative foreign policy can - must - be built. Liam's legacy needs to be developed; it must not be squandered.

The leadership may have calculated that foreign policy is very rarely high on the electorate's priority list when it comes to deciding how to vote. That would be surprisingly short-sighted & wouldn't fit into the current strategy of challenging the public perception of the party.

Our approach to foreign policy tells the electorate a great deal about what our priorities are as a party, and how we see Britain in the world. This is a significant influence on the way perceptions of us are formed.

Liam's vision was for a party and a nation that is generous and global in outlook, and sees the promotion of democracy, freedom, good governance and the rule of law as being not just the right thing to do but vital national interests. I am very much looking forward to seeing how Cameron & Hague take that forward.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Our army is already hugely overstrectched - and doubtless Bliar & co would be only too delighted to see our troops get sued for anything they did in Darfur."

UIVMM, we currently have 22,500 troops stationed in Germany (more than Afghanistan and Iraq combined). Now I know Frau Merkel is a bit of an unknown quantity at the moment, but I think we can trust her not to unleash merry hell on continental Europe if we redistribute some of those troops...

[John Hustings]

"UIVMM, we currently have 22,500 troops stationed in Germany (more than Afghanistan and Iraq combined). Now I know Frau Merkel is a bit of an unknown quantity at the moment, but I think we can trust her not to unleash merry hell on continental Europe if we redistribute some of those troops..."

Never trust the Germans.

[Simon C]

Having posted above last night that the EPP issue seems to have been out on ice, it's only fair to report that according to Today William Hague is off to Brussells to get on the case. All the best to him!

[Andrew]

"UIVMM, we currently have 22,500 troops stationed in Germany "

That's not an expensive foreign deployment though, as they have a permanent setup in Germany (logistics costs basically the same as if they were in Britain). Send even a few thousand on a combat/peacekeeping mission and the costs balloon. Specifically relating to Darfur, the vast distances would mean troops would have to be helicopter-based, and only really the US has the capacity to do that in sufficient numbers.

[Louise]

Apparently the Conservative Party policy on Darfur is that we will press the UN for action. Translated as "we're quite happy for another Rwanda to occur and blame the UN for its inaction"

Perhaps we could start by sending some troops to the Sudan, the cost doesn't seem to bother us in Iraq or Afghanistan so why should it be a consideration where there is a desperate humanitarian need?

We have just commemorated Holocaust Memorial Day where we all said "Never Again", yet there is genocide happening today and we are standing back and doing nothing.