Steve Norris sets big green test for Cameron

Steve Norris is recommending that the Tory leadership embraces 'eco-taxation' and ceases to be "the provisional wing of the Automobile Association".   Not content with taking on the car lobby the former transport minister also wants serious taxation of the already troubled airline industry.  Referring to the owners of Ryanair and EasyJet he told yesterday's Guardian:

"Mr O'Leary won't like this, Sir Stelios won't like this, but every environmentalist will regard this as absolutely essential. You do have to avoid creating a culture based on cheap aviation which will be as pernicious as the way of life based on car ownership has been in terms of urban planning. We've now got a generation living in France, working three days a week here, [which] thinks nothing of going to Prague for a stag night."

Mr Norris advocates a shift in taxation worth "tens of billions of pounds".  He notes a thirty year shift in the relative costs of different forms of transport that has benefited the car.  From 1975 to 2004 there was a 11% real terms drop in motoring costs but a 66% to 70% rise in bus and train fares.

Should David Cameron embrace Mr Norris' recommendations he will be at odds with Conservative opinion.  Populus has found that Tory voters oppose 'increasing the cost of motoring to encourage less driving' by 65% to 33%.

Noting John Howard's success in building public standing on the back of tough decisions, ConservativeHome does, however, believe that adopting Mr Norris' recommendations could give David Cameron real credibility on the environment.  ConservativeHome sets three key tests for this shift to green taxation:

1. There must be matching cuts in other forms of taxation - particularly those that fall on lower income strivers.  An adviser to Downing Street is already relishing the Tories piling taxes on sunseeking families according to John Rentoul in The Independent: "[David Cameron] can have his windmill on top of his house and we'll have Crawley and the north Kent marginals, thank you very much."
2. The changes to taxation must be designed to drive technological change so that they produce cleaner forms of transportation rather than a restriction in travel for its own sake.
3. That there is a plan to internationalise the resulting technology.  There is limited benefit in Britain reducing its environmental impact if China and India, for example, continue to pollute without restriction.

Comments

[James Hellyer]

If "green taxes" work as designed, then the revenues they generate will inevitably fall with time. It's hard therefore to see how a party already scared of articulating the case for lower taxation could use such taxes to justify cutting other taxes.

Beyond that, "green taxes" are deeply discriminatory against the very lower income strivers the editorial suggests the tax system should be favouring. They are the ones who will be priced out of having their trip abroad once the likes of Mr Norris have swung their axes at the low cost carriers. Meanwhile people who can afford to will travel as before. It's unlikely that Mr Norris is indicating that he should be priced out of air travel.

[John Coles]

It astounds me that this ghastly political and business failure commands such attention in the Conservative party.

[Epping Forest resident]

He is not remembered fondly here.

[Gildas]

The arrogance of these people is astounding.

"You do have to avoid creating a culture based on cheap aviation which will be as pernicious as the way of life based on car ownership has been in terms of urban planning"

In other words, we can't have riff raff flying.

We own a car, but we've only been able to do so in the last 6 months, and it has made a huge difference to our quality of life. For years we lived the reality of having to rely on the bus (in a town with about as good a public transport system as you can have) and would not go back to using it if you paid us.

For years I've resented it when people say 'the Tories are just for the rich' but if people like Norris have their way it will be a hard case to refute.

[Laughing Cavalier]

Mr Norris is very rich and can easily afford a doubling or more of airfares; and so it is easy for him to advocate high taxes on air travel. He will still be able to afford to fly whilst the public, whom he expects to vote for him and his ilk will have to stay at home. Typical elitist politician.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Bravo for Steve Norris for having the guts to say the unsayable (in Conservative terms) about taking the necessary steps to tackle the damage that high-polluting methods of transport do to our environment.

Economic disincentivisation of harmful practice is something I've championed for a long time, particularly in relation to transport pollution.

The Editor talks above about 'the already troubled airline industry', but when I read news about vast swathes of the Home Counties countryside being paved over to allow for airport expansion, I fail to see how the airline industry can be in that much trouble.

The fact of the matter is that there are far too many unnecessary flights taken these days, such as the Bristol-Plymouth service I frequently cite, all of which are effectively subsidised by Johnny Taxpayer because of the favourable fuel duty rates enjoyed by the aviation industry.

Furthermore, and I know this is a rather feeble justification, the sort of measures proposed by Norris would act as a boost to our flagging domestic tourist industry by encouraging more people to take their holidays at one of the many splendid tourist destinations within Britain.

[HF]

Where is the research to show what the reaction from the battle ground voters will be?

Will it really gain votes or just fight the Lib Dems to a neutral position on the environment?

[Paul Staines]

Vote loser for sure. Low income people should not be priced out of overseas holidays to placate affluent Green's sensibilities.

[Chris Palmer]

Green Taxes are not a good idea. As simple as that really. Taxation just creates frustration and resentment - whatever the circumstances, and therefore the Conservatives should be looking for incentive based schemes, it any at all.

[Cityhippy]

Instead of using taxation to penalise bad eco behaviour surely we would enjoy better success by rewarding positive eco behaviours?

FLIGHTS
Lets make it preferable and cheaper for people to holiday at home here in the UK ie no VAT on British Hotels etc for a stay of 4 nights or more if you check in showing your UK passport. Hotel not charged VAT on all stays with valid UK passport number and owners details attached.

ENERGY
Lets make energy efficiency simpler, cheaper and preferable i.e. no VAT on CFL bulbs

TRANSPORT
People who need to drive or prefer to drive are going to drive. Period. So lets try to incentivise development and purchase of fuel efficient cars i.e. remove VAT on all alternative energy vehicles ie hybrids. Car companies and buyers will benefit.

Thoughts?

Namaste

Al

[michael mcgough]

I seem to recall Norris complaining about travelling on the tube with smelly people and now they travel by plane too.

[tapestry]

If holidays were booked last minute the UK might benefit from lower taxes on hotel services, as our weather is so unpredictable.

The problem will be that holidaying at home usually involves driving around by car. If that is made pohibitive, all that will happen is that all holidays will get more expensive.

No wonder Downing St are rubbing their hands.

It will be better to attack the problem from the macro-environmental end, not from the consumer side which will only increase the pain felt by voters. If Britain gets on with bio-fuels, wave, tidal, wind and thermal power, fuel cell, hydrogen etc and we build local power stations to provide heat as well as power, we will massively cut our emissions.

Asking consumers to put windmills on their roof is only tinkering with the problem, as is punishing people for going on holiday, and enjoying life.

This is a wrong turn.

[sjm]

Why are we still giving house-room to this failed nobody, Norris?

I'm sick to the back teeth of being lectured to and taxed by people who have no qualifications to run my life better than I do myself.

If I wanted stomach-churning 'environmentalism' based on iffy science, and social engineering via the State, I'd read the Guardian and vote for the Left.

Woulld someone please put Norris out of my misery?

[John Coles]

If someone can help Sim and remove Norris from his consciousness, would they please also add Gummer, Heseltine and Clarke to the list and so ensure my future peace of mind?

[sjm]

John Coles - I'm with you all the way with your suggestions, and I know there are some more superannuated old farts in the 1922 who would not be missed by their colleagues!

[Denis Cooper]

Cityhippy @ 12:47

"... no VAT on British Hotels etc for a stay of 4 nights or more if you check in showing your UK passport. Hotel not charged VAT on all stays with valid UK passport number and owners details attached." etc

has evidently forgotten that we are in the EU. And hugely beneficial it is too. :-)

[Jane Wright]

"There must be matching cuts in other forms of taxation - particularly those that fall on lower income strivers"

Steve Norris has proposed this with matching cuts in VAT and other taxes.

All power to him. This is the sort of bold, credible thinking the Tories need.

[Denis Cooper]

Phase out road tax and at each point recover the same revenue by increasing fuel duty. That helps everybody who needs to own a car, while increasing the cost of actually using it. Lower average annual mileage means fewer cars on the road at any time, means less congestion, means quicker and smoother journeys, means fewer cars on the road at any time, means less congestion, means less need to fork out on building new roads ... but major changes to the way we live can only be achieved gradually, otherwise it becomes too painful.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

What if lower income strivers want a weekend in Prague?

Why are all environmentalists the kind of people who can afford a large increase in fares? Again, it's one rule for them and another for the people who will feel the pinch of their wizard new eco policies.

[Ted]

Many of the Green Tories have taken on board taxation as the instrument of change - particularly of aviation & Chelsea Tractors - as a badge of belonging. The Green Lobby has laid down that you can't be serious about green issues if you aren't going to tax these severely.

Why? Aviation is a tiny though growing part of CO2 emissions & global warming (I think its about 3%) so if it doubles it remains a small part of the problem. SUVs make a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road. Small changes in efficient transport of goods, local generation, increased energy efficiency all do more than stopping the SUV/Aviation emissions altogether.

Can we be grown ups about the issue and get away from gesture politics. Seriously reducing CO2, methane & other CO2 sources means looking at the big causes and reducing them - so home energy use, power stations & loss in transmission, goods distribution, centralisation of facilities (hospitals, schools, megastores all miles from consumers of the services), goods distribution & road congestion (lorries & cars are very inefficient at low speed). If this means changing taxation rules then look at how this can be done in a way that has public acceptance and reduces economic shock.

[malcolm]

Why do so many Conservative members seem to think that referring to someone as 'enviromentalist' is an insult? These people are trying to build a better world lets try to work with them.

[Dave J]

"...no VAT on British Hotels etc for a stay of 4 nights or more if you check in showing your UK passport. Hotel not charged VAT on all stays with valid UK passport number and owners details attached."

This would, of course, require the UK to withdraw from the EU in order to work. Which I do not, myself, regard as a bad thing, but thought worth mentioning.

"These people are trying to build a better world lets try to work with them."

It's the self-destructive means and not the idealistic motives that are usually the problem. Making air travel more expensive as a way to "save the world" reminds me of nothing more than how the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and opposition to GM foods contributes to the deaths of millions by starvation.

[Gildas]

"These people are trying to build a better world lets try to work with them."

Eyewash! The environmentalist movement is about ending economic growth, ending the development of new technologies (ever heard of the 'precautionary principle'?), and consigning the world's poor to a picturesque but miserable subsistence future.

And they don't even care about actual real answers to pollution - look at the stunt they pulled in the 90s over the disposal of the Brent Spar, which meant (due to corporate cowardice on the part of its owners) that instead of being sunk in the deep ocean it was dismantled on land and the chemicals within it had to be disposed of on land.

[TimB]

I think the most elegant solution to this is to slap VAT on airline fuel. Their current exemption is equivalent to a subisdy and offensive to free market principles. It would also target environmental impact rather than numbers flying (it's planes in the air that cause the problems not the marginal addition of passengers) and this would incentivise airlines to fly at greater capacity. It may even allow room for abolition of air paasseger duty, thus contributing to our aim of simplifying taxes and offsetting the extra cost that will flter down from the VAT on fuel. Politically it easier to be seen to charge profit making airlines rather than 'honest holidaymakers', though of course in reality all taxes on business are really taxes on consumers.

[Gildas]

"Their current exemption is equivalent to a subisdy and offensive to free market principles."

We keep hearing this, and it is awful that so many conservatives buy into it. That is only the case if the default premise is that everything is taxed, except those things which the state in all its benevolence has decided to spare. Needless to say, while that fits with the philosophy of certain other political parties it should not be our default premise.

[David Simpson]

What about personal tradeable carbon allowances? These are not regressive (in fact poor people who cannot even now afford NFC flights would benefit as they could choose to sell their unused carbon allowance to richer farts) and they would not discriminate against this or that mode of carbon generation - whether petrol engined car, coal fired electricity, or even air mile costs of organic veg from the other side of the planet. And they would give all of us a clear signal as to what to buy / do at least cost to the planet. It's sad that Labour have already suggested this, but no argument against it.

[malcolm]

Yes Gildas, I'm sure the most important priority of an enviromentalist is how to end industrial growth! -Not.
A huge amount of work is done by groups such as the RSPB,The Wildlife Trusts and English Nature to protect the enviroment AND to promote efficient and sustainable agriculture in this country.Is their work 'Eyewash' too?

[Matt Davis]

Thank god that Norris won't be our candidate for the London Mayoralty again, and quite how two appallingly bad and failed attempts at defeating the open goal that is Livingstone qualify him to be lecturing all of us on keeping the poor oiks off of aeroplanes is beyond me.

There is a serious danger that our version of the green agenda is going to be perceived as simply elitism by the back door and proposals such a Norris' will only help Labour to make that point.Genuine environmental advances will best be secured by educating people and by making green alternatives available to them, not by fiddling with the tax system to the benefit only of the better off, or by coercion.

[Ted]

Environmentalist is a name Conservatives should be proud to wear. Yes there are elements in Green lobby that are romantic Levellers, New Age wannabees or anti-capitalist. But care for this planet and for quality of life are core conservative values - we are not by descent free market libertarians (except from the infusion of whiggish ex liberals) - and what we can offer are real solutions based around what works to conserve rather than some revolutionary tosh that excites teenage romatics.

Matt is right in that real environmentalism isn't about fiddling with the tax system, it's about using technology, education and targeting real and achievable change. Fiddling with tax is about as useful as Nero was when Rome burnt.

[Britannic]

Since green taxes will almost solely affect business, this is utterly nonesensical.

To be perfectly honest, this whole cheap airline environmentalist angle has been blown way out of proportion. Even the UK were to disappear off the map overnight, the emmissions reducion (if global warming proves real) will only serve to delay the predictions by about 5 years. There are some real solutions to global warming. These are:

1) Investment in fast breeder nuclear reactors.

2) Investment in fusion.

3) Investment in clean coal.

4) Investment in carbon sequestration.

5) Investment in carbon-fixing microbes.

Taxing holidays is about Socialists trying to find a politically correct way to get at the middle classes - nothing more. It will not affect climate change in the slightest.

[Jon White]

In principle, 'Green' taxation makes sense - lets stick it to the polluters. We surely all want to help preserve the planet for future generations.

Sadly, however, its a huge vote loser. Firtsly, it is reqressive taxation - the poorest members of society will pay the largest percentage of their incomes for it. Secondly, as someone else has posted above, it comes across as the elitist snob Tories again - we don't want Johnny Riff Raff up in the air, do we?

I'm not sure what the answer is. Norris, for once in his pitiful career has some good points, but the presentation of policies like this is a minefield that perhaps we could do well to avoid right now.

[comstock]

"We are not by descent free market libertarians (except from the infusion of whiggish ex liberals)"

One of the funnier things I've read on here. Are you seriously suggesting the Maggie 'Privatise anything we can get our hands on' Thatcher years were just an abberation???.......

[comstock]

Getting back to the subject I think the main problem with taxes on holidays is that they hit hardest people who are already living fairly modest lifstyles (because they are poor- at least by western standards) but enjoy a week a year in the sun. The rich of course will continue to do as they please.

This is why I think Labour have rejected such taxes- because they hit the very people they are supposed to be standing up for.

[James Carter]

Let's hope Steve Norris is our party's Mayoral candidate again.

This sort of tough and tender policy combination is exactly where our party needs to be.

[Jon White]

Yes James, great idea. Then this oaf, who has made Prescott look bright by comparison, can record a hat-trick of defeats against a anti-semetic, pro-IRA, tax and spend, red Socialist.

If Norris is the answer, it must be a particularly stupid question.

[Ted]

comstock

Thatcher is not the Conservative Party, she led it for 15 years or so - I voted for her, supported her and think she is one of our best leaders and her infusion of real free market beliefs her great gift to this party - but she was not the final prophet sent to give the Tories commandments & doctrines to bind the party forever. In historic terms she was very non-conservative - I think she'd have been happier in a Gladstone rather than a Disraeli government.

She was certainly viewed as an aberration by many Tories in the early years of her government - the Wets for example and many of the old conservative "gentry" and her eventual downfall was when these managed to ally with the malcontents who'd lost jobs.

Similarly Tony Blair is IMHO viewed as an aberration by many in the Labour Party - hence the desire for the Prince skulking in his Scottish hideaway.

[John Allen]

Thought Conservatives were the positive party?
Shoudnt we be advacating a competition that would find the 21st century transport.

Driverless "cars" on elevated roads must be the answer, so can I please have the prize?
(further clue: try a search on - light rail bristol )

[Britannic]

"In principle, 'Green' taxation makes sense - lets stick it to the polluters. We surely all want to help preserve the planet for future generations."

Errr... no, actually. Those polluters are the people who maintain our standard of living. If we want to reduce pollution then we should subsidise nuclear power, but we won't. Simply taxing polluting business just makes it leave, as china clay production already has because of the climate change levy, where it pollutes more than it did originally in other countries, whilst damaging UK productivity and our trade balance.

[Helen Collins]

"Then this oaf, who has made Prescott look bright by comparison, can record a hat-trick of defeats against a (sic.) anti-semetic, pro-IRA, tax and spend, red Socialist."

First, Steve is extremely intellectual--not at all like Prescott.

Second, he has run a government department with competence, and is responsible, for example, for the Jubilee Line Extension, the largest addition to the London Underground to date (under the last Tory government that invested more in public transport than this Labour one).

Third, refresh my memory, were you supporting Lord Archer in 2000? Or Nikki Page in 2004? Hmmm, let's see who would have won those contests.

Come to think of it which, ahem, "heavyweight" candidate are you supporting this time, Nicholas Boles, Victoria Borwick, Warwick Lightfoot or whatever the other one is called?

Doubtless one of those will just cruise to victory against the Mayor (and by the way, "Red socialist" doesn't work as a campaign tactic--but then what do you know about campaigning, you prefer Boles, Borwick & Lightfoot to a serious candidate like Steve Norris?).

[Matt Wright]

Modern Conservatism must be about giving more opportunities to more people. The quote from Norris does not seem to reflect this.

Matt

[Jon White]

Helen Collins: The fact that so far we don't have a serious heavyweight contender does not mean that we should go again with a two time loser.

(and incidentally, whilst it is purely hypothetical and unprovable, I do think that Archer would have done better than Norris in 2000).

[changetowin]

Good work Steve! Tough choices need to be taken sometimes. What would the "politics of And" suggest?! More flights, more cars AND less pollution??? Get real.

[John Taylor]

"I do think that Archer would have done better than Norris in 2000"

And you believe in UFOs also, right?

[TomTom]

Why don't they go the whole 9 yards and put VAT on train fares, taxi fares, and bus fares. Most parts of the EU impose VAT on travel and housing, and on prescriptions.

Surely putting 17.5% VAT on train fares and Tube fares will help spread the burden of this "green revolution" ?

How's Norris doing at Jarvis ? What a fine company that is !

[John G]

Am I alone in thinking that Norris is, and always was, an utter waste of space?

We need a candidate who can convince the growing ethnic minority population of London that the Tories will stand square against international US aggression.

In other words it's not enough for David Cameron to make vague anti-Neocon noises. He has to deal with the Neocon menace.

And that starts right behind him in the shadow cabinet.

[Richard]

It appears that the Tories might be making the first steps towards taking responsibility for their actions.

What a shame the comments on here show that Tory supporters are still stubbornly in the 'I'll do what I want, and cause whatever damage and suffering I want, as long as I want' mould.

How can anyone justify a claim that a tax on air travel penalises the poor? Tax on food, tax on clothes, tax on income maybe. People seem to think that the alternative to taxation on environmentally unsustainable actions is magically not taxing anything - maybe they think that printing money is the answer.

It is astounding how many people can close your eyes to reality and justify their own fixed viewpoint regardless.

[er, ridiculous]

"We need a candidate who can convince the growing ethnic minority population of London that the Tories will stand square against international US aggression."

That would be the Steve Norris who, breaking with the party line, opposed the Iraq war, and was the first Conservative candidate to reach out to minority ethnic voters (at a time the party was railing on about bogus asylum seekers and "waking up in a foreign land."

[Britannic]

"People seem to think that the alternative to taxation on environmentally unsustainable actions is magically not taxing anything - maybe they think that printing money is the answer."

People also seem to think that reducing by a small percentage the emmissions of a second that makes up a small percentage of the total emmissions of the UK which in term make up only 2% of world emmissions will actually make any difference. It won't. We should stop wasting our time on small, irrelevent excuses for stealth taxation like this and try to implement real solutions, such as a nuclear power grid.

[TomTom]

We need a candidate who can convince the growing ethnic minority population of London that the Tories will stand square against international US aggression.

You do ? How about George Galloway ?

[Kevin Miller]

What we need is a serious candidate like Steve Norris.

[John G]

What we need is a serious candidate like Steve Norris.

That's the best joke I've heard today. Cheered me up no end.

Ageing Lothario, car dealer, director of Jarvis, two-time loser.

Just about everything that was worst about "Tory sleaze" rolled up into one paunchy bloop of a has-been, or rather a never-was.

Time to wave ta-ta to that particular busted flush. Nick Ferrari seems to have a lot to offer. Anybody know his views on US/Neocons etc?

[Claire Johnson]

"Nick Ferrari seems to have a lot to offer"

That's right, a loony right radio presenter, just when we are finally beginning to convince Londoners that we have shed our party's outdated prejudices--exactly what we need.

I think I would prefer Steve Norris to him.

[James Kern]

"Ageing Lothario,"

Backwards supporters like this are the very reason the Mayoral and MP selections are being placed in the hands of the public.

I for one hope Steve Norris runs--and now that is Londoners' choice not sadly rather narrow minded ideologues like this.

[John G]

"Ageing Lothario,"

Backwards supporters like this are the very reason the Mayoral and MP selections are being placed in the hands of the public.

Sorry? Are you denying that Norris made a fool of himself with his blatantly sexist extra-marital romps which ended up in the Sunday Papers?

Or perhaps you believe that an Alan B'stard type confessions of a geriatric window cleaner figure is just what the party needs. If so let's bring back David Mellor, Piers Merchant, and even Edwina Currie for a bit of gender balance.

But the real killer for decent voters is that Norris is forever linked to Jarvis.

The man has been allowed to fail twice on the basis that the party couldn't find a decent candidate. He's a has been from the Thatcher days. Time for a new face.

[london tory]

"Sorry? Are you denying that Norris made a fool of himself with his blatantly sexist extra-marital romps which ended up in the Sunday Papers?"

This is an echo of the pre-David Cameron Conservative Party in which members' prurient and prudish interest in personal matters which are none of their business was indludged when it came to candidates. Those bad old days are now over, thankfully.

By the way, if Jarvis was a "killer" for voters, how come Steve's vote went up 2 points in 2004 while the average vote for Conservative candidates for seats on the Assembly showed their vote drop 2 percent?

Further, Steve Norris was the decent candidate--saving us from the nightmare and humiliation that would have been the party's fate with Jeffrey Archer or Nikki Page.

It is posts like this above that remind us why the leadership took the decision about candidate selection away from the members.

[John G]

This is an echo of the pre-David Cameron Conservative Party in which members' prurient and prudish interest in personal matters which are none of their business was indludged when it came to candidates. Those bad old days are now over, thankfully.

Oh really? So all that suddenly changed when DC became leader did it?

Care to explain the mechanics of this amazing - nay incredible - turnaround? Were the minds of the entire membership (bar mine)instantly reprogrammed to suit your B'stard-friendly world-view?

I seem to rememeber that one of the main reasons for the downfall of the Major government was sexual sleaze. I'm not aware that Mellor and Merchant (to name but two) were ever guilty of any offences beyond the bedroom, but if I'm wrong please do enlighten me.

But you got one point right.

Norris was possibly the least of three evils.

[Jill Harries]

"Exactly, and it's not an issue in the yuppie areas of London except when reality intrudes and Brixton lads come in to nick the Rolexes of metrosexual liberals.

Nor is it an issue in Tower Hamlets (apart from the gentrified parts near Liverpool Street Station). The whites have fled."

Sorry, but someone who elsewhere on this blog says this above (see: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/08/green_calls_for.html#comment-21337558) doesn't deserve to have their views heard in our party. Personally, I find it amazing that someone with the obvious talent and ability of Steve Norris would even be in the same party as someone like this. Steve Norris for Mayor and one of the two other well known right wing parties for this gentleman please.

[london tory]

"I seem to rememeber that one of the main reasons for the downfall of the Major government was sexual sleaze."

Try sky high interest rates, Black Wednesday and the tax rises after campaigning against them. Try actual sleaze involving MPs and ministers' actual jobs and their ability to perform them properly--legitimate matters of concern for the public and the party.

"So all that suddenly changed when DC became leader did it?"

Check out today's newspapers. Party members in associations with fewer than 300 members (the worst examples of unrepresentative people choosing our candidates) are being substituted for a more representative group of people to choose our party's candidate.

The days in which narrow minded bigots in our party can indulge their petty minded prejudices about people's private lives, at the cost of strong candidates who serve our party's interests well, are over--one of the reasons why you will be getting the same one vote as any other Londoner who wants it in the forthcoming Mayoral candidate selection.

[John G]

Oh dear Ms Harries. Have to ask your permission before speaking, do we?

I suggest you get out a bit more. Come to one of my ward meetings and I fear you'll be urging us all to join "one of the two other well known right wing parties"

Norrisis bedroom antics are only the icing on the cake. The stake through the heart is Jarvis.

Time to move on and find a decent candidate.

[John G]

Party members in associations with fewer than 300 members (the worst examples of unrepresentative people choosing our candidates) are being substituted for a more representative group of people to choose our party's candidate.

Tory Democracy R.I.P.

Tory Party R.I.P.

[Matt Campbell]

Did someone--a supposed party member--really say this? This John G, whoever he is.

"Exactly, and it's not an issue in the yuppie areas of London except when reality intrudes and Brixton lads come in to nick the Rolexes of metrosexual liberals.

Nor is it an issue in Tower Hamlets (apart from the gentrified parts near Liverpool Street Station). The whites have fled."

How embarassing. And people say that we don't need to continue to change.

Just imagine what floating voters would think if any wandered onto this site.

[John G]

Thank you for that intelligent comment Matt Campbell, (whoever you are).

Maybe you'd like to dissect what I said and tell us why you think it's factually incorrect?

[Tired and emotional]

With respect Matt,

It may be unpalatable to your ears but very large numbers of people know these things to be true. Simply saying "Oh how ghastly" doesn't cut it, white flight is a reality. Ignoring what is happening and what the country actually thinks about immigration and crime is asking for people with really unpleasant views to step in.

[Shayna Turner]

Comparing the value to the party of having a big well known name like Steve Norris putting forward a modern, inclusive, anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-homophobic message out to Londoners, to the rantings of the Tory equivalent of the Militant Tendency, I know which I would rather have, and which way lies electoral recovery.

I think if a small minority of Conservative members would like to make "white flight" an issue in the Mayoral election, it is time for them to pack up and join another party because if our party ever made it an issue, we might as well pack up and go home before the Mayoral election even begins.

[Adam]

What it comes down to is this - either you want to do something about environment (eg carbon emissions) or not.

If you do, then you are faced with two choices. Either you can sit in Whitehall, decide what the outcome should be then invent a complex system of carrots and sticks to try and achieve it; or you can price up the carbon (eg with a tax) and let the market get on with dealing with it.

Personally, I find the latter more convincing. It just seems more conservative than a command and control system I'd associate more with socialism...

[John G]

Steve Norris putting forward a modern, inclusive, anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-homophobic message out to Londoners

Shayna you cannot be serious.

Obviously you don't remember Norris when he was in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet. None of these left-wing mantras were of any interest to him in those days. Actually he used to pose as a right-winger. Wasn't he once a member of the Monday Club?

His caveman-style extra-marital activities certainly suggest an atavistic reality, but be that as it may he's now a has-been. Forget about him.

I can think of one Tory who would make a really excellent candidate, and he's from an ethnic minority.

Syed Kamall MEP. Has anybody approached him?

[london tory]

Oh dear, "John G" causes himself more embarassment each time he opens his mouth.

Steve Norris was never in Mrs. Thatcher's cabinet. That's the reason why no-one can remember it. It never happened.

He was, however, one of a handful of backbench MPs to rebel against her government on Clause 28, despite having only recently entered parliament. That, by the way, was 20 years ago. It's pretty ignorant and inaccurate to call that "a left wing mantra"--although does reveal a lot about the mindset of the person who typed it.

No, Mr. Norris was never a member of the Monday Club, and, no he has never been in sympathy with their views.

And, er, I don't think Syed Kamall, in common with any other decent Conservative candidate for any elected office, would be up for campaigning on "white flight."

[Jill Harries]

I'm a huge fan of Steve Norris and would like to see him run for Mayor but can we get back to the subject of his very interesting environmental proposals and save the Mayoral debate for that blog?

[John G]

Actually, London Tory, Norris was first in Parliament in 1983 and very busy posing as a right-wing loyal Thatcherite as I well remember, probably at a time when you were discussing playground politics over a box of jelly tots

I'm intrigued by the fact that you claim to know that Norris was definitely not in the Monday Club? Got a hot line to the man himself have we? Even ultra-modernist John Bercow was once a leading light in this far-right group.

As for "white flight", the issue was gratuitously introduced to this thread by your fellow Norrisite Ms. Harries.

It's a sad fact of modern urban life, but I'm not sure that anybody has advocated campaigning on it so I'm surpised that you should bracket my support for Syed with a campaign which seems to have originated somewhere between your ears.

[Ted]

I try always to play the ball not the man but in this case I do wonder if John G is a real Tory or a construct of some Labour hack - Mrs Thatcher once said you learnt more about a person on the basis of what he accused you of, rather than what he stood for and John G seems very prone to accusations others aren't really conservatives or are wet behind the ears.

Still taking him at his word - I first joined the Tory Party back in 1973 and later on bought my first car from Mr Steve Norris - a VW Golf which ran well for 10 years, maintained regularly (until he sold the dealerships) by Steve Norris Motors. He ran a good company. Because of that I took some passing interest in Mr Norris's career. Mr Norris was Labour at University and has always to my knowledge been on the socially liberal side of the Tory Party. He has always been his own man, able to do so because he is selfmade and confident of his abilities. That's why he was able to face up to tabloid bullying.

He has always been interested in transport issues and while in this case I don't agree with his solutions I don't doubt he has thought them through. I just don't think a bit of green taxation on air travel or car taxes will be an effective solution to CO2 generation and swingeing increases would have an effect only because of the economic downturn they would cause.

[John G]

Well Ted I joined the Party in 1971 so I have had a couple of years more than you to suss out the wet-behind-the-ears fraternity, not to mention the total phonies and the here-today-gone-tomorrow brigade.

I recall 1973 very well because I became chairman of my local YCs in that year. I think dear old Clive Landa of the jeans and tee-shirt at Party Conference had become National Chairman, and assuming you were a London YC I could reel off a list of the lefty GLYC luminaries of the time from Ray "Mad" Hatter who ended up in prison through to Robert Atkins who ended up in parliament.

Possibly this sort of "inside information" is available somewhere on the web but I doubt it.

Sad that you should feel that anybody who disagrees with you and your friends must be a Labour "troll". Maybe you should get out a little more and find out what most Tories are thinking.

BTW I don't doubt your credentials. GLYC was full of your ilk when I joined the party.

[Ted]

John G - apologies for doubting you but I was trying to make point about accusations of immaturity & not being real conservatives.

As for "my ilk" I am proud to take that badge - my ilk believe in a broad conservative party where there are many I disagree with on differing policies but can be a home to politicians as diverse as Anne Winterton and John Bercow, we don't say the is only one type of real conservative. I was a proud Thatcherite and happily supported what she did overall though not her destruction of local government and social conservatism, I could not support happily John Major's Government, particularly over the self inflicted wound that was Maastricht and its Yugoslav policy.

I support David Cameron, while he is to the left in many cases of my beliefs, as he is well within the conservative centre-right consensus. He is dealing with the politics of now not the politics of 30 years ago - different world, different solutions.

[london tory]

At the risk of boring everyone by continuing to engage this individual who comes back no matter how many times he is shown to be wrong:

Norris voted against the Local Government Bill containing the homophobic section 28 TWENTY YEARS AGO--hardly sucking up to Thatcher or a last minute conversion in 2000.

Assuming that this person is a party member, I think the way he expresses himself tells us a lot about what has been going on with the reactionary elements of our party.

They have--finally--realised that some words and phrases are simply unacceptable but because they don't fully understand the issues and sensitivities involved they still say crass and stupid things that have no place in a modern Conservative Party.

To even use the phrase "white flight"--never mind calling it "a sad fact of urban life" just shows how out of touch some of our members are. Similarly branding opposition to Section 28 as a "left wing mantra" just shows complete ignorance about the issue itself, London voters, perceptions of our party and what our party should be about. He is not alone in having this problem, and reminds me of another party member on this blog--perhaps it was him--making a reference to "our sexually diverse friends."

Other elements in the party have faced the same--for them--rather steep learning curve. Look at how the Daily Telegraph for example welcomed the woefully under qualified Niki Page into the Mayoral selection last time because she was a woman, ignoring the fact that her views would write off the party's chances in a Mayoral election in a city like London. Some of these same people are making the same mistake with Nick Ferrari this time around.

Our party's language and behaviour has not been appropriate in the past, and we simply cannot afford--for the first time in the London Mayoral election--to have a Mayoral candidate who does not understand that.

[John G]

Seems I may have misjudged you Ted, but I am more concerned with those on the "left" of the party who believe that they are the only ones with the right to hold an opinion; a right they would certainly not extend to Ann Winterton.

These people frequently talk about "inclusiveness" when they believe in nothing of the sort. No doubt you may well have pulled them up in the past over this.

I don't think you'll find that I have recently suggested that other posters were "too PC to be real Conservatives". I might well think it but the argument is unproductive.

What I have said, when certain posters react to mildly non-PC statements with the horror of Victorian spinsters espying a nude piano leg, is that I find it hard to believe that they have regular dealings with rank-and-file Conservatives.

I haven't changed that opinion.

[John G]

Well hello London Tory. I don't post all day and then you and I post at exactly the same time. Spooky!

Really, you know, it was just your intolerant "ilk" I was writing about.

As I have shown to Ted's satisfaction I have been a Tory for 36 years and I don't simply change my opinions because you think I ought to. Section 28 commanded big majority support among parliamentary and rank-and-file Tories - frankly I couldn't give a stuff what Norris's pitiful view was on the issue - and I think the Tories were 100% right to bring it in. It was repealed by Nulabour in case you've forgotten, not by us.

But I am pragmatic enough to realise that it can never be brought back. And FYI I did not use the expression "our sexually diverse friends." I doubt that the people you are referring to are friends of mine.

Are you claiming that "white flight" - a term invented by the media - doesn't exist?

You'll notice that I don't criticise your views because you are fully entitled to them. Kindly allow me the reciprocal courtesy of having a right to my own opinions.

Oh, by the way, how long have you been a member of our party?

[london tory]

I'm not going to post on this thread again because I, like I'm sure everyone else, am bored with you.

Suffice to say, at least one in three Londoners are minority ethnic, and more than that significant proportion are opposed to racism of any kind. Similarly, at least one in ten Londoners are gay or lesbian, and a much bigger proportion opposed to homophobia.

What you say as an individual is a matter for you but when you say you are a party member to a member of the public you are also speaking for all of us, whether the rest of us want you to do so or not.

Your use of the phrase "white flight" as a party member and calling it a "sad fact of modern life" or branding opposition to Section 28 a "left-wing mantra" put on full display to people who talk to the ill-informed and bigoted prejudices that have done our party so much damage in recent years and prevented us from capatilising on so many of the government's failures.

I've been a party member for 20 years, and have waited a long time for our party to grow up about some subjects. If you can't, then at least have the decency to speak to members of the public for yourself only rather than as a party member or join another party where your views are welcome.

[John G]

Well London Tory, I have always been made welcome in the several associations to which I have belonged and in which I have held senior rank.

While your views would certainly be tolerated by my colleagues I think your self-righteousness would be regarded as somewhat worse than "boring" (a classic straw grasped by a drowning man who is losing an argument)

You will be pleased to know that when speaking to members of the public - clients and the like - I do not make a habit of identifying either my political allegiances or my personal opinions. When canvassing I stick to the candidate's manifesto. I would hope that you do exactly the same.

I am indeed very concerned about the views of ethnic minorities in London. I suggest tht you check out my several posts on the dangers of far-right "Neocon" Islamophobia a far greater danger to our party than some of the the traditional views that seem to upset you so much.

[Jamie Page]

"I am indeed very concerned about the views of ethnic minorities in London. I suggest that you check out my several posts on the dangers of far-right "Neocon" Islamophobia a far greater danger to our party than some of the the traditional views that seem to upset you so much."

Yes, but I don't think they will have much time for your views on the tragedy of "white flight."

This is a bit like some American conservatives who in recent years have decided that the way to reach out to African-American voters for example is to emphasise homophobic and sexist views. I think your comments rather show that you just don't get the new Conservative Party that David Cameron is building at all. Trying to cover up your prejudices with comments like this just don't convince I'm afraid.

And I can't help but notice in passing the fact that the BNP is a huge opponent of neo-conservative foreign policy and shares your unpleasant view that "white flight" is a "sad fact of modern urban life."

[John G]

So Jamie (alias London Tory?), are you arguing that "White Flight" - under whatever other name you may care to give it - is not a fact of urban life, sad or otherwise? Please do give us the benefit of your opinion.

I think this is the third time I've posed this question without getting any response whatsoever.

My concerns about our Muslim fellow-citizens have nothing to do with Afro-Americans, "homophobia", or any of the other irrelevancies you mention.

The BNP is clearly Islamophobic and I understand that - like certain far-right elements on the fringe of theConservative Party - they now support anti-Arab aggression in the Middle East.

The Conservative Party, new or otherwise, is no more than the sum of its members. While I have tremendous respect for David Cameron I am not in the market to be "built" or even "rebuilt" by him or anybody else.

On the contrary, I am still able to think for myself, thank you all the same. Sorry we have to agree to disagree, but that's life I'm afraid.

[Jamie Page]

"So Jamie (alias London Tory?), are you arguing that "White Flight" - under whatever other name you may care to give it - is not a fact of urban life, sad or otherwise? Please do give us the benefit of your opinion."

I can speak for myself thanks. I'm explaining to you that you calling "white flight" a "sad fact" gives the game away about your real opinions. This is nothing new with opinions like yours. The BNP, for example, claim they are not a racist party. Your language, like theirs, gives your game away, I'm afraid. And I think you'll find your "respect" for David Cameron is not reciprocated. Why not write to him and ask if he thinks that "white flight" is a "sad fact." Better still, go away.

[John G]

So would you prefer I called it a "happy fact"?

Still no comment, I see, on the phenomenon itself. If you would prefer to build harmonious communities, as I would, burying your head in the sand is not an option.

You seem to be upset by my support for David Cameron, an odd attitude for a fellow Tory. As to whether David respects my views or not, I don't suppose he has the faintest idea who I am. He has his job to do and of course I recognise that presentation and packaging is part of it.

I'm afraid, Jamie, that if you think that my modestly un-PC views are unusual, you have a very great deal to learn.

Seems you haven't had much experience of the real far-right either. I've been on the wrong side of the National Front and believe me they don't use words - they use fists.

And no, sorry to spoil your evening, but I'm not going to go away.

[Jon White]

As always, it's the perception that counts. If people perceive 'white flight' to be real, and I have no idea if it is or not, then it is an issue that should be discussed and dealt with.

Nothing feeds the racist more than they being able to claim that others are not taking their opinions seriously and sweeping them under the carpet.

We must not be afraid to tackle these issues, repugnant though they may be.

[ok]

Let's just have the BNP as the nasty party shall we?