What should Cameron say in his big speech?

On Saturday morning David Cameron will speak to his first major Conservative gathering since he became party leader.  Since his election in early December the Conservative Party has increased its opinion poll standing by about three or four percentage points.  The ConservativeHome Poll of Polls still gives Labour a 1.4% lead, however.  ‘Project Cameron’ has a long way to go if the Conservatives are to earn a parliamentary majority of one.

What should David Cameron say on Saturday morning?

• Should he use it to emphasise his change message?  Should he look to his long-term rebranding of the Conservative Party and say that he is determined to accelerate his change agenda and his emphasis on social justice, environmentalism and equality for women?
• Should he offer some reassurance to the core vote with some Euroscepticism and tax-cutting?  Might he even deploy the ‘politics of and’ by explaining the compatibility of core and breadth issues?
• Should he focus 100% on the local elections and put the council tax hike facing pensioners at the heart of the campaign?

Editor's comment: I would hope that he makes some serious mention of the unfolding tragedy in Darfur.  Darfur is the biggest man-made tragedy in the world today.  David Cameron highlighted the issue on a number of occasions during his leadership bid but 121 days into his leadership he has said almost nothing on this issue.

A challenging article (not online but scanned below) in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal by Paul Rusesabagina (whose heroic efforts inspired the Hotel Rwanda film) said that four conditions needed to be in place for genocide to happen:

1. A cover of war;
2. Ethnic grievances must be manipulated and exaggerated;
3. “Ordinary citizens must be deputised by their government to become executioners”;
4. “The rest of the world must be persuaded to look away and do nothing.”

David Cameron is not Prime Minister and cannot make anything happen directly but he can put pressure on our Government to act in Darfur.  Up to 400,000 people may have been killed in Darfur and the killing and raping continues.  The existing African Union troops in Sudan have no equipment and no clear rules of engagement.  The UN – compromised by Chinese and Russian economic relations with Khartoum – is enfeebled.  Saturday may not be the moment for a big initiative on Darfur but every passing day is another day of shame for what is called the ‘international community’.  Some community.

5.20pm UPDATE: WHAT I DID NOT KNOW WAS THAT WILLIAM HAGUE AND ANDREW MITCHELL HAVE BEEN IN DARFUR OVER THE LAST WEEKEND: ‘William Hague’s video diary from Darfur will be shown on Channel 5 News TONIGHT at 5.30 and 7pm.’ I have just learnt.  (I still think it needs Cameron to put the issue on the political agenda, however).

CLICK ON THE GRAPHIC BELOW TO READ ARTICLE IN YESTERDAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL >>>

Comments

[Louise]

Tim,

Thank you for raising this important point. We are sitting back and allowing a slow genocide to happen in Darfur without speaking out. It was a very trendy buzz-word during the leadership campaign but has got left behind since the election.

There is no point the Conservative Party policy being to push the UN for a resolution on the issue. We all know how ineffective the UN was in Rwanda. Our International Development team visited Rwanda recently, and saw the film Shooting Dogs, and doubtless shook their heads, muttered about how awful it was and now what?

Issues such as this are becoming more and more important and we must develop policies which offer a real answer.

[JT]

"The Conservative Party has done many things in its time that are right, and I am very proud of them.

But it is clear to me that each period in office has brought with it its own mistakes. Some were obvious at the time, some only became obvious later. Many of them are obvious to me now. These were not my mistakes, but I apologise to you for them.

Parliament, and the Conservative Party, were wrong in the 1970s to remove entire swathes of the democratic process, entire areas of national life, from the hands of the British people, and from its elected MPs. They were wrong to hand them over to persons unelected by the People.

Many of these powers of which I speak reside in persons unelected in Britain and unaccountable to the British people and their parliament. Many of these powers reside in persons and institutions unlected by anyone.

These powers have increased in scale and scope as the years have passed. No wonder today that so many feel disenfranchised, cut off from the politicial process and from any real sense that their voice, and their vote, count.

The transfer of power - and the corresponding destruction of democracy in Britain - was compounded by successive Conservative prime ministers. The reasons given at the time were supposedly economic, but the greater success of those outside of the EC has demonstrated that even that was a chimera, an illusion. We should have listened when a minority spoke out against it, but we didn't.

But over time that minority has become today a broad and diverse coalition.

Therefore I announce that under my first Conservative government I will ensure that no letter of the law, nor no penny of tax, will be levied but by the direct authority of the British parliament, at the sole instigation of the Commons.

I will hand you back your money, folks, and your Parliament, and your country. Power to the People."

[Derek Buxton]

Suggestions for a speech:

"I'm sorry I sunk the Conservative party.
I'm sorry I insulted many previous Tory voters.
And finally could someone tell me how to spell "resign".

Shame really, all that excellent Eton education going to waste.

[Account Deleted]

DC needs to make a coalition building speech, which both reassures people who might have been offended by his UKIP comments but also projects a new image on issues like Darfur.

The Conservative coalition needs to be broad to win. Howard ignored various issues to the detriment of the party. Cameron has to ensure that he doesn't do the same but from the other direction.

Foreign policy could be a good area - strong action on the EPP and a serious commitment to Darfur - the statement we should consider using AU forces to intervene would be something that we toconsider.

Action on the EPP would help restore credibility - when we say we'll do something we will do it, which then feeds into Darfur - if we were in power we would do something.

Cameron needs to remember that those who win elections, like Blair and Thatcher, keep enough of their core vote happy enough to vote for them while building alliances with others.

One final thought - keep the tone optimistic.

[Buxtehude]

Editor, you are right to raise Dafur but I can easily understand if DC doesn't go for it on this particular occasion. I think it would be more appropriate to do some kind Easter message on that subject and make Saturday more domestic/political.

But you are right that he must say something substantial. The attack from Caroline Jackson today hit home because his insubstantiality is his weakness - when she says it's all 'cosmetic', it's hard to deny. Labour have identified this as the point to attack him on (which is why I suspect Ms Jackson is doing their business and will shortly defect to Labour, as her husband did).

The big trick for him to pull off is to say something important and make us all believe it truly matters to him. This won't be easy as he does seem to dreadfully glib about everything. (Maybe he's not - maybe he's really sincere. I'm prepared to believe it. But the flip side of being a good tv performer is that as time goes on, people don't take you as real.)

I think he should say something substantial about the economy or about public service reform. Something that matters. And he must say something that isn't immediately definable as a quick strike for 'niceness'. If it doesn't have edge, it will make him look irrelevant.

My own suggestion would indeed be council tax. I think he should start talking about 'avlue for money'. If he doesn't want to talk about tax cuts he can at least be the champion of the ordinary paying more and getting less. There should be some anger on behalf of ordinary punters.

[Clare Lewis]

"I come here to Manchester today with an apology and a big announcement. I stood for the leadership last year wildly overestimating my capabilities as a politician. Over the course of my short leadership I have felt out of my depth and this has begun to show through. I am sorry to the party for this, but today I am stepping down from the leadership and offer my full support to David David the man I think can make this party great again."

That would make my year if DC said that, mainly because it would be the right decision.

[Goldie]

JT: Congratulations. Powerful, pithy, and oh so very true.....If only DC was a conservative with some guts, he could have sold policies like that.

This is what I thought we signed up to, instead he gives us waffle and PC.

[Account Deleted]

Whack me down as someone who thinks council tax should be up there too - balance out with foreign affairs to make a wide ranging speech.

Point out ctax is typical new labour - stealthy, that it is regressive, and that it is used to fund ? How much can dustbinmen cost...

[wasp]

I expect he will kick off on stage 2 of the project. Start talking about the agenda for government.

I know he has to bide his time but he can't be silent for ever.

[JT]

Thank you, Goldie.

I have sent Mr C a copy, with an offer of a royalty-free licence in the copyright, should he wish to use it.

[Ed]

An unequivocal statement about Britain's relationship with the EU would do much to reassure everyone, I think. The focus thus far has been upon leaving the EPP, but nothing has been said about what the Conservatives will actually do once they've left it. Common Fisheries Policy reform? Anti-constitution campaigns? Or (fingers crossed), a pledge to swap the EU for EFTA?

[John East]

If he doesn't say anything right of centre to this audience, then we are really in trouble.
Is it too much to expect a touch of Euroscepticism tinged with a hint of law and order? After all, these topics can play well with the left as well as the right.

[Dick Wishart]

I take great exception to your leading comment about the first major conservative gathering, the first was actually here in wales at the Welsh Conference. whilst I have regretably come to accept that Wales does not appear on the radar much in your Westminster village/home counties viewpoint it is VERY important to the Party.
In Wales next year we have the financial equivalent of another general election ie the Welsh Assembly elections, this will be the first REAL test of camerons leadership. As most council elections are fought over very LOCAL issues the Assembly elections are fought on a full manifesto based on party policies.
Some of your bloggers more than likely think that Wales does not matter, without the Conservative gains we can make in Wales which these assembly elections will lead onto, the chances of us forming the next government will be remote.
There is an awful lot of conservatism in Wales do not ignore us nor write us off

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Hopefully he'll touch on the work of the policy groups/commissions/taskforces (call them what you will) and the progress they've made so far.

I think we can expect a jokey reference to the Blair/Brown antipathy, a defence of his UKIP comments and maybe some focus on 'improving our local environment'.

[Dick Wishart]

Further to my earlier comments, statistics given by Gavin Barwell last year showed that Wales had outperformed every other part of the UK (including the south east) in terms of improvement since 1997

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I take great exception to your leading comment about the first major conservative gathering, the first was actually here in wales at the Welsh Conference."

To be fair to the Editor, the Welsh Conference wasn't a national (in UK terms) conference and it wasn't very well reported either.

I remember David Cameron announced the creation of a Wales taskforce, to be chaired by Cheryl Gillan, but further details have not been forthcoming unfortunately.

[Editor]

David Cameron hasn't just given a speech in the VERY important nation of Wales since he became Tory leader... he has also spoken in Scotland and to Tory local councillors. My point was that this is one of two of the biggest set-piece speeches any Tory leader gives in a year (the other being at the October conference). All of the media will be there. As important as Wales is, Dick, this speech will be bigger!

[buxtehude]

Above all, he should make it clear he is no longer stuck in the Blair Project c1996 time-warp where he and his team have been wallowing for the past year. The country can't stand that stuff anymore.

It's interesting how often some version of the phrase 'Power to the people' comes up - or at least the sentiment. Is it just that we're bloggish people or is it really true that we just don't want that old 'Isn't the leader WONDERFUL" goo that party members have been expected to produce (Labour and Tories alike)? And instead we think ordinary people are just as clever, sensible, good, creative, as the nutters who become elected politicians?

[Jack Stone]

David Cameron, the best leader the party as had since Margaret Thatcher, should concentrate his speech about the peoples concerns. High council tax, crime, bad public services. He should not go on about Europe, an obsession of one section of the Tory party and the nutters of UKIP and no one else and Darfur which is tragic but unfortunatly most of the people he as got to aim his message at don`t even know where it is let alone what`s going on there. Politicans talking of foreign affairs turns off most people quicker than any other subject.
When this site was first created I thought it was going to be somewhere Conservatives could discuss ideas etc that woiuld help get the party back into power. Sadly it as become a forum for malcontents and cryto right-wingers who can`t stand the thought there like are no longer running the party and losing us elections. If there so disenchanted with the Conservative party they should frankly sod off elsewhere.

[True Blue]

JT: Congratulations. Powerful, pithy, and oh so very true.....If only DC was a conservative with some guts, he could have sold policies like that.

This is what I thought we signed up to, instead he gives us waffle and PC.

I could be wrong, but aren't you the same poster who asked whether Enoch Powell was racist? If so, do you think he was? I'm just trying to place you in the party spectrum.

[Bruce]

What matters, unfortunately, is not what Cameron says in the speech, but what the media report he said, because 99% of the people will only know of it through the media.

[Rick]

Maybe he should go through the Bills which have been flowing through Parliament....................and point out how these will change the Constitution of the country......................how the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Act could permit a minority government to rule by Decree; how the Civil Contingencies Act could have Chris Mullin's filmed play "State of Emergency" come true.

How reorganising the Police; ID Cards, reorganisation of Ambulance Services, Fire, PCTs could lead to total control from the centre of every school, every town, every hospital, and every policeman.

Maybe..............just maybe .............he could suggest that the Conservatives had a vision other than that being developed by the Marxists in power and that if Labour forms another two administrations, elections might only have one party allowed to stand

[Selsdon Man]

My suggestion is

"I hereby reinstate all former candidates who were removed from the candidates list in December.

The Priority List will not be formed and all members of the Approved Candidates List will be eligible to apply for any seat when it is advertised.

Local associations will be free to select any candidate they wish, including a local candidate who is approved by the Candidates Committee."

[John Hustings]

"I could be wrong, but aren't you the same poster who asked whether Enoch Powell was racist? If so, do you think he was? I'm just trying to place you in the party spectrum."

Why should an opinion as to whether someone is racist or not fix them on the political spectrum? Isn't there more to politics?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"If there so disenchanted with the Conservative party they should frankly sod off elsewhere". Quite right, Jack, although you are a bit late, cos about 4 million have already sodded off and soon to be joined by others I suspect. According to the Mail, Maude is rather"gloomy" about the Conservatives chances of winning the next election.
And there were some thinking that Maude. Clarke and Letwin knew all the answers?Someone should try to get that 4 million back, but then dear old Jack would probably "sod off".

[Dontmakemelaugh]

I forgot: congratulations JT. Unfortunately we wont be hearing your speech.

[Rick]

"If there so disenchanted with the Conservative party

they're

[Esbonio]

Excellent article in this week's Spectator by Peter Oborne ( a man I have had difficulty agreeing with for some time) about this week's meeting between Dave and Tone re party finances which for me was the last straw.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"they're". Don't blame me, Rick; blame Jack (he has probably "sodded off" by now).

[James Maskell]

"I hereby stand down as Party Leader and I appoint James Maskell Life Leader of the Conservative Party with immediate effect"

Well.....I like the sound of that speech!

[Goldie]

No, of course Dr. Enoch Powell wasn't a racist.

[matt wright]

I think Cameron should concentrate on the following:
council tax
pensions
health
education
These 4 things are the ones that are coming up most often in my discussions with voters. I think he needs to begin to set out genuinely novel ideas that reflect the fresh approach he promised. We cannot fudge the council tax issue, we need a clear policy we can sell on the doorstep,

Matt

[AlwaysAmazed]

Hey, Jack Stone, why don't you and start our own blogsite and we'll count the ways that Cameron is beautiful.

That would be so useful. That would make such an interesting discussion. We just wait for the latest bulletin from Steve Hilton and then say what a great idea it is.

I'm really so suprised that people are losing interest in politics, aren't you, Jack? It's so much fun just thinking about Cameron. Why are the British public so gosh darned cynical? Can't they see that under Brother David this country will once again flourish? What with the fresh alternative he's offering to Blair, you'd think... blah blah blah

[James Maskell]

Cameron will do a "vision" speech like he did at the Conference. As its Easter should we be suprized if its a fluffy speech?

[Rick]

No, of course Dr. Enoch Powell wasn't a racist.

Posted by: Goldie | April 06, 2006 at 22:01

Well he did speak fluent Urdu and he had spent quite a bit of time in India. If he was "racist" it was in the same way Urdu-speakers are "racist"

[Andy Stidwill]

We can never win an election with a defeatist attitude. Please can someone tell Francis Maude that simple fact.

[Richard]

"Well he did speak fluent Urdu and he had spent quite a bit of time in India. If he was "racist" it was in the same way Urdu-speakers are "racist""

It is also notable that Powell encouraged Indian immigration in the 1950s.

Anyway, back on topic. Cameron should not make a load of bland feelgood statements that any party could agree with. He should begin to lay down clear principles that future policies will be based around and not just "we believe in trusting the people". Then we would know what the party actually stands for. As someone said above, all wings of the party need to be undited under a common programme. This means, for example, that the Left will have to make sacrifices on European policy but the Right will have to accept that too much concentration on immigration is not going to win an election. Having said that I accept that many on the Right would have favoured a broader campaign in 2005.

[Goldie]

DC desperately needs to give us some red meat. He won't. He will give the same tired shtick he's been giving us since last May.

[Richard]

Some ideas:

Give schools more independence including over admissions.
Move towards a European style health system
Work to repeal damaging EU social legislation
Adopt a points system for immigration and speed up the return of failed asylum seekers
Cut taxes by abolishing Government waste, noting that the James Review identified about 30 billion and the ECB calculated that we were wasting 83 billion
Have an environmental policy aimed at improving environmentally friendly technology
Deregulate industry, especially small businesses
Cease the underfunding of the armed forces and put an end to overstretch
Repeal the HRA or, if that's not politically possible, introduce measures to stop it being taken advantage of for absurd claims
Build more prisons
Abolish county councils and devolve their power (and don't forget scrapping the regions)

[Chad]

Cameron will do a "vision" speech like he did at the Conference.

He does give a great speech, but they are like Chinese takeaways, good at the time but leaving you feeling hungry soon afterwards.

As long as his speech is not along the lines of "and I welcome our star new candidate...Priti Patel!"

Still, I'm sure the speech will drive some optimism which must be a good thing and it has got people listening again which is a major achievement in itself.

[True Blue]

Why should an opinion as to whether someone is racist or not fix them on the political spectrum? Isn't there more to politics?

Those on the extremes (both left and right, if you want simplistic designation) tend to be less tolerant.

[Michael McGowan]

Jack Stone's contributions are such a laugh. I could write them myself. You just pick a random selection of hyperbolic adjectives from the New Labour/Tory Moderniser lexicon of moth-eaten abuse e.g. racist, swivel-eyed, crypto-right wing, bigot, homophobe, mysogynist, extreme, ultra, malcontent, headbanger doomsayer, etc etc etc ad nauseam. You then stitch your random selection into what passes for a sentence...preferably verbless because that is what your icon, Tony, would do.

[True Blue]

No, of course Dr. Enoch Powell wasn't a racist.

Thank you for your answer. If you've read hist rivers of blood speech and a couple of others and think he isn't racist, then we certainly have a different definition of racist. He was kicked out of the Shadow Cabinet on the basis of his "racialism", so you views are way out of mainstream Conservative views.

Posted by: Goldie | April 06, 2006 at 22:01

Well he did speak fluent Urdu and he had spent quite a bit of time in India. If he was "racist" it was in the same way Urdu-speakers are "racist"

That comment is laughable. You saying if you speak Urdu you can't be racist. It's like a vaccine against racism? Brilliant.

Thank you both for these comments. It makes it much easier to put your views in context.

[John Hustings]

"Those on the extremes (both left and right, if you want simplistic designation) tend to be less tolerant."

I think we must have a different idea of what is meant by right and left wing.

Oh, and it is you that sounds intolerant to me. You're the one who seems to be conducting some kind of witchhunt against anyone who has sympathies with Enoch Powell (and whatever anyone says, there was much to admire in Enoch Powell).

[James Hellyer]

He was kicked out of the Shadow Cabinet on the basis of his "racialism"

Racialism isn't the same thing as racism. It accepts that races have differences, but doesn't presuppose superiority or inferiority as a result of this.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Jack Stone's contributions are such a laugh. I could write them myself. You just pick a random selection of hyperbolic adjectives from the New Labour/Tory Moderniser lexicon of moth-eaten abuse e.g. racist, swivel-eyed, crypto-right wing, bigot, homophobe, mysogynist, extreme, ultra, malcontent, headbanger doomsayer, etc etc etc ad nauseam. You then stitch your random selection into what passes for a sentence...preferably verbless because that is what your icon, Tony, would do."

It wouldn't be complete without the obligatory liberal scattering of deliberate spelling mistakes though.

[True Blue]

He was kicked out of the Shadow Cabinet on the basis of his "racialism"

Racialism isn't the same thing as racism. It accepts that races have differences, but doesn't presuppose superiority or inferiority as a result of this.

"racialism" as it was used then, is semantically identical to racism. They didn't kick him out for thinking that races have differences, but for his inflammatory racist speeches.

Please, read the speeches.

[True Blue]

Oh, and it is you that sounds intolerant to me. You're the one who seems to be conducting some kind of witchhunt against anyone who has sympathies with Enoch Powell (and whatever anyone says, there was much to admire in Enoch Powell).

I didn't bring him up, at least this time. Goldie was suggesting that Enoch Powell was not a racist. If you can read the "rivers of blood" speech and not sense any racism, you really do have to have certain entrenched attitudes which inform the rest of your politics.

Enoch Powell had some admirable qualities including a formidable intellect and superb oratory. I would even say I have "sympathies with him". However, even the Conservative party at the time recognised his speeches for what they were.

[A Floating Voter who recently stumbled on Conservative Home]

Racialism isn't the same thing as racism. It accepts that races have differences, but doesn't presuppose superiority or inferiority as a result of this.
Posted by: James Hellyer | April 07, 2006 at 11:49

I think you will find that dictionary.com & Princeton University disagree with you, Hellyer.

racialist
n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racist]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Powell may have been an intellectual. This doesn't mean he wasn't crazy or wrong occasionally.

[James Hellyer]

It's interesting to note True Blue's very selective quitation there. From his source, dictionary.com:

ra·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-lzm)
n.

An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
Policy or practice based on racial considerations."

I can't imagine why he left that out...

[A Floating Voter who recently stumbled on Conservative Home]

I can't imagine why he left that out...
I think that says more about your imagination than anything.

First of all, True Blue didn't make the comment. I did.
How about paying attention and reading comments through instead of rushing to post?

There are several reasons why I did not put the first definition you quoted above.

Firstly, There were two definitions of racialism. I did not post either.
Of the two, the second is described as Chiefly British and so it is obviously the more relevant of the two.
That definition describes racialism and racism as being synonymous and actually supports my point.
The fact that I did not post either definition, shows I was not being selective.

Secondly, the definition of a racialist is completely at odds with your assertion that racialism does not pre-suppose inferiority or superiority.

Thirdly, I posted a link to the definition for anybody who cared to read it themselves.
I am sure they can read and understand for themselves without your helping hand.

[James Hellyer]

First of all, True Blue didn't make the comment. I did.

I put my hand up to that one.

Firstly, There were two definitions of racialism. I did not post either.

Probably because one of the two doesn't support your point.

Of the two, the second is described as Chiefly British and so it is obviously the more relevant of the two.

Even if it only really reflects modern usage, where "racialist" and "racist" have become synonyms?

Originally, "racialist" had precisely the meaning I ascribed to it, being derived from the word "racial" ("pertaining to characteristics of race"), and was a neutral term.

Overtones of prejudice were eventually ascribed to it (probably via usage to describe South Africans, whose discrimination was based on concepets of superiority).

This doesn't change the fact that the two words had distinct meanings.

[johnC]

All this semantic discussion is very interesting, but the victims of genocide in
Darfur are probably more interested in the practical effects of racism/racialism than their etymological origins.

Bosnia should have shown us that (a) the EU and (b) the UN were totally ineffective when it came to genocide. And the AU is more hopeless than either.

The only thing that finally stopped the rampaging Serbs was US forces.

And the only thing to halt the genocide in Darfur is a US led military invasion.

Unfortunately, after the disaster of their last African intervention in Somalia, not to mention current commitments in Iraq, this is not going to happen.

So the best we can hope for is for the UK and US to provide logistical support and training for the AU forces, greater diplomatic pressure on Khartoum, and more support for the international NGOs trying to cope with the effects of the situation.

I think this is the most we can hope for at the moment. Certainly it would be nice if David Cameron could mention it, but there aren't many votes in it especially in local elections.

[Jack Stone]

Enoch Powell was a racist and he did enormous damage to this party. He had far more in common with those on the far right like the BNP and the National Front than ever did the vast majority of Conservatives.
Powell was responsible for getting Labour elected in 1974 the same way the right were responsible with there destructive ways during the Major time in Downing Street were responsible for Blair getting into Downing Street.
Cameron should take on the right. He should make it plain they have had there day and the British people will just not accept there out of date solutions to our countrys problems anymore.
I don`t think those on the right want Cameron to win the next election. They want another defaet in the hope they can regain the leadership of the party in a post election leadership contest.
My message is dream on!Cameron is going to win because unlike many on this site he actually as the right ideas to win.

[Chad]

Jack,

the current electoralcalculus prediction which is close to the poll of polls here shows Labour with 50% more seats that the Tories, 119 extra seats, and an overall majority of 50.

There has been a slow and steady erosion of the initial leap in the polls that Cameron brought, and Maude has been widely quoted in the press today that it is unlikely that the Tories will win next time.

Blindly following a strategy that is failing is more defeatist that seeking to correct mistakes to improve chances of victory.

Unless you have a pair of ruby slippers that you can click the heels and wish a conservative victory, perhaps you should look at what is happening rather than what you would like to happen.

[Richard]

"Enoch Powell was a racist and he did enormous damage to this party."

Actually his speech was very popular in the country and some even suggest it might have contributed to the Tory victory in 1970. That said I accept the legacy of Powellism may have been to deter ethnic minorities from voting Tory.

Jack Stone, I would be interested to know what solutions you believe this country needs? How do your values differ from the Lib Dems and Labour? I only ask because you constantly criticise the Right but don't seem to have offered any of your own ideas.

[Sean Fear]

"He had far more in common with those on the far right like the BNP and the National Front than ever did the vast majority of Conservatives"

Enoch Powell had next to nothing in common with either the NF or the BNP. He condemned the ill-treatment of black detainees at Hola Camp; supported decolonisation; supported black majority rule in South Africa; and was a free marketeer.

Jack, instead of foaming at the mouth endlessly about the Conservative Right, why not tell us what exactly you do for the Conservative Party (if you really exist?)

[Umbongo]

Enoch Powell, racialist or not, had the distinction of being slung off the front bench by the worst leader this party's ever had (except, maybe, for John Major) I won't count IDS - he wasn't there long enough to be considered. One point: according to Wikipedia "Powell's popularity contributed to the Conservatives' surprise General Election win in 1970, which showed a late surge in Conservative support in the West Midlands near Powell's constituency". Is there a lesson there for DC?

[Richard]

"Is there a lesson there for DC?"

I doubt it. Powellite rhetoric won't win elections anymore.

By all means call for the stemming of mass immigration but don't make it a centrepiece of the campaign or allow it to come across as racially-based.

[Rick]

That comment is laughable. You saying if you speak Urdu you can't be racist. It's like a vaccine against racism? Brilliant.

Thank you both for these comments. It makes it much easier to put your views in context.

Posted by: True Blue | April 07, 2006 at 10:24

True Blue - is that synonymous with not being able to read and comprehend ? Had you read my comment you would not have made this mistake.

In fact you will find that many people who speak Urdu are "racist"; and indeed if you got out more you would find this obession with race is a purely Anglo-Saxon fetish.

Maybe you should listen to the Japanese comment on the different smell of a Briton versus an Australian; or how the Chinese assess different races. It is a product of 1960s university expansion in both US and UK and probably makes the French, certainly the Russians, no doubt the Indians, and definitely the Brazilians consider the Anglo-Saxons to be so oblivious to how the world really perceives them that they engage in self-flagellation for satisfaction.

[Rick]

Jack Stone, I would be interested to know what solutions you believe this country needs?

I don't think he's read that email or newsletter yet. When "Dave" decides in his inimitable Chauncy Gardner interpretation of events Jack will let us know...................but "Dave" can't tell us until Tony has confided in him.

[Rick]

Powell was responsible for getting Labour elected in 1974

You are so right Jack Stone.......in February 1974 Powell left the Conservatives and urged people to vote Labour as Wilson promised a Referendum on the EEC.

Such was Powell's influence that Labour won - TWICE in 1974 - and it was so good ! We had a referendum in 1975 but we got rid of the State of Emergency Heath left us with; the power cuts on daily rota; TV shutdown at 10pm; the 3-Day Week.

You were probably not even conceived back then; but it is hard to think of any British Government ever leaving the country in as big a mess as Heath did in 1974. A pig-headed Prime Minister who thought he was Absolute Monarch.

But you are right to poiint out the influence of Enoch Powell - so be careful not to alienate those the public respect by following false prohets into the wilderness !!!

[Rick]

I doubt it. Powellite rhetoric won't win elections anymore.

By all means call for the stemming of mass immigration

It ain't going to happen. Read this week's Spectator.

Just get used to it Europe has porous borders and there are 120 million Nigerians, many of whom want to move to London. The Southeast is going to be a very crowded neck of the woods with water rationing and very ragged health and education.

There is no prospect of any party controlling immigration simply because neither party has to date; each has given indefinite leave to remain on a regular basis.

There is really nothing these political parties can do save spin the story and rob Peter to pay Paul.........it is all illusion, they have neither power nor will, but are just jobbing actors auditioning for a role.

[Jack Stone]

Enoch Powell told people to vote Labour in 1974 which many people believed lost the Conservatives the election.No greater damage can be done to a party than to kick it out of power.
David Cameron as set out the course for this party not for five days or five months but five years. Changing course now just five months after he set that course would be disastarous not just for him but the party as well.
The party will go up and down in the polls but no one doubts we are performing better now than we have done for a number of years and I think that once the party is seen to change to be more in tune with its leader than the improvement in the polls will grow.
On this site we should be talking about how we can improve our public services, how we can reduce crime and how we can tackle the threat to our environment.
We should not keep going on and and on about UKIP`s obsesssions of race, immigration and the European Union.
If anyone who is a member of the party is so offended by the leader of this party attacking another party because they agree with that party more than they do with us I repeat what I said before they should sod off and join that party.
It will be there lose not ours as it will demonstrate to the public if we lose the right wing nutters who have been responsible for much of what`s been wrong with the party in recent years that we really have changed.

[Richard]

"On this site we should be talking about how we can improve our public services, how we can reduce crime and how we can tackle the threat to our environment."

I would also like to see more on this.

[Rick]

Seemingly Cameron attacks Brown but not Blair or Labour.

Actually Jack Stone I am more immediately concerned with the threat to parliamentary democracy - the flow of legislation at present is reminiscent of Hitler's busy period in 1933.

Maybe Tories should combine with Labour Left as Michael Foot and Enoch Powell did in the 1960s to stop Blair destroying the Upper House.

What is the point in having policies on Crime if Yorkshire ends up with an imposed police force covering 6000 square miles and 6 million people against the wishes of the voters and the police ?

With regionalisation of Police, Fire, Ambulance, PCTs the local MP is going to be a very impotent individual

[Biodun]

Just get used to it Europe has porous borders and there are 120 million Nigerians, many of whom want to move to London.
Posted by: Rick | April 07, 2006 at 19:36
Oooh err.. calm down now, Ricky Boy.
Most Nigerians who want to emigrate actually want to move to the US or Canada. The UK is definitely not the first choice.

Of those who come here, a sizeable majority have plans to move back home after 5 years or so -they often naively assume they'd have saved enough money to start up some business.

If Nigerian immigration is keeping you up at night, Rick, or if you find yourself waking up in a cold sweat every so often, then you should go and advise HSMP applicants that tax is pretty much 40% of their income.

Trust me, many will not bother. I know a few people who actually thought that 22%-40% tax rate was not worth the hassle.

BTW, there are about 250 ethnic groups in Nigeria. Only one of them actually has a large presence in the UK.